| ??? 06/27/08 21:34 Read: times |
#156276 - I know Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I know I looked it up.
I also noted about using _at_. If he is using absolute addressing the chip may have 8K, but the Linker does not. If his program is using the last 4k for example, the linker needs to know. Then he would get the more useful out of RAM message. Rather than the RAM conflict he has now. Because in this case working does not prove there is no overlap. And, after insuring there is none, He must check it every time the program is modified. ( But you know that) And, unless he has a good reason for poking about in the RAM he should let the linker handle it. It is what linkers do best. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Strange problem with Keil Compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Try volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Probably not the volatile | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Who can know what is in the mind of the compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| cut out the optimizer (set to 2) and see | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Assembler Dump | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XRAM is enabled | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the most likel7y reason is that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You may want to let the linker know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| he is using a '124 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Linker output | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OVERLAYABLE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OVERLAYABLE ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eh, no debugger for silabs chip? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I am using CA51 which dont have debugging | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it will | 01/01/70 00:00 |