• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 3733 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Locating code at a certain address

Vsevolod Lapshin

How can one locate a table of constants at a certain address in C ?

Parents
  • 0 in reply to Dan Henry

    Dan,

    I didn't mean to offend you with that post.

    The alternative being what -- always generating the new OMF51+ format only?

    New records would only be generated if the _at_ = {x, y, z }; is used. So, if you don't use that, there would be no problems.

    If you have an emulator that doesn't support the absolute assignment record...don't use that...#ifdef it out.

    GCC sure does have a lot of options. I had to get a GCC port up and running the other day and it took me a while to figure out if I was generating the best code or the worst.

    Our compiler option list is starting to look like the GCC option list. The problem is that many users start by setting all kinds of options (without understanding all the ramifications) and that just gets them into trouble. And, that's what I want to avoid.

    Jon

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Dan Henry

    Dan,

    I didn't mean to offend you with that post.

    The alternative being what -- always generating the new OMF51+ format only?

    New records would only be generated if the _at_ = {x, y, z }; is used. So, if you don't use that, there would be no problems.

    If you have an emulator that doesn't support the absolute assignment record...don't use that...#ifdef it out.

    GCC sure does have a lot of options. I had to get a GCC port up and running the other day and it took me a while to figure out if I was generating the best code or the worst.

    Our compiler option list is starting to look like the GCC option list. The problem is that many users start by setting all kinds of options (without understanding all the ramifications) and that just gets them into trouble. And, that's what I want to avoid.

    Jon

Children
  • 0 in reply to Jon Ward

    "New records would only be generated if the _at_ = {x, y, z }; is used. So, if you don't use that, there would be no problems."

    Ah, I see -- excellent, and no need for options.

    "If you have an emulator that doesn't support the absolute assignment record...don't use that...#ifdef it out."

    Plus, if in emulator does not support that new record type, it's quite likely that a little emulator command script could initialize those memory locations as if they had been initialized during code load.

    "GCC sure does have a lot of options. I had to get a GCC port up and running the other day and it took me a while to figure out if I was generating the best code or the worst."

    What? You mean it wasn't intuitively obvious? ;-)

    "Our compiler option list is starting to look like the GCC option list. The problem is that many users start by setting all kinds of options (without understanding all the ramifications) and that just gets them into trouble. And, that's what I want to avoid."

    Absolutely! The presence of new records only if the _at_-initializer is used certainly avoids that. Thanks for sharing your notion of how the OMF51 compatibility issue would be addressed.

    /Dan Henry