[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] IAR vs GCC (Larry Barello)

From: Larry Barello
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] IAR vs GCC (Larry Barello)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:27:22 -0700

Sorry, I can't help you with either of your questions.  IAR is certainly a
professional development environment.  But, as I use GCC I find that most
everything I need to do has been covered.  The extra's in IAR seem to be
archaic or there to support other architectures.  I am sure, if you knew
how to run the gnu linker, you could do what you want. But I am the wrong
person to ask.

I question the need to place strings at an absolute location.  But, what do
I know...

----- Original Message -----
From: "TODD BATZLER" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:26 AM
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] IAR vs GCC (Larry Barello)

My company is currently using the IAR Embedded WorkBench as the "official"
compiler for product development. I've been using GCC for everything of a
personal nature.  I've been struggling with GCC over a feature that IAR
makes very pain free, which is placing a string of bytes at an absolute
location in the code segment, then having the linker to be smart enough to
"wrap" the other code segments around this absolute segment so as to not
waste large chunks of the CODE section.  I've managed to dig up enough
information on linker scripts to modify one to create the required absolute
field in the rom image and place my required data there.  However, if my
relocatable code gets larger than my absolute address minus the start of
the .text section, I get a warning that the linker location counter can not
be "backed up".  Which makes sense.  Any ideas on how to instruct the
linker to check the available space between defined section starts and any
absolute sections and then have it figure out when it can place code in
that section (if it will fit) or place it after the absolute section (if it
will not)?

Also, do you know how to find out what was specifically done to the "avr-"
variants of the GCC binaries to make them different from the "standard" GCC
release files.  I'm assuming that support for some of the architectures was
removed, plus a bunch of other things.  There's no specific documentation
for the avr-ld, avr-objcopy, etc files.

Thanks for the attention.

Todd Batzler

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]