Re: [cc65] ca65 for stand-alone asm projects

From: Ullrich von Bassewitz <>
Date: 2010-11-11 15:23:54
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:47:13AM -0500, Greg King wrote:
> Some headers/trailers don't have any addresses in them that need to be
> relocated.  Therefore, any random start-address would work just as well
> as any other address.  There are situations where a programmer wouldn't
> care what the start address is; and, he wouldn't care about size-checks.
> He doesn't want to be forced to name things that are totally irrelevant
> to him.  There are values that are obvious defaults for those
> attributes:  If "start=" isn't there, then it would default to zero.  If
> "size=" isn't there, then it would default to the host compiler's
> maximum unsigned int value.

While it is theoretically possible to construct a case where a memory area
doesn't have relocatable data placed into it, this is quite rare. I don't
think that it's the case with any of the existing C targets. Making "start"
and "size" optional just for such a case and having errors going unnoticed in
all others is a bad idea. What's the big deal with saying "start=0
size=0x10000" if you don't need it?

> > > Since the non-loading file sections have no place in the o65 format,
> > > it seems you would need some such method to identify them.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean with that, either.
> He's talking about the headers and trailers (they're read, but not
> loaded into memory).

If so, it's a misunderstanding. The MEMORY section is not about what's getting
loaded. It is used to place code and data into memory (assign an address to



Ullrich von Bassewitz                        
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Thu Nov 11 15:24:01 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-11-11 15:24:04 CET