| ??? 06/28/08 21:44 Read: times |
#156289 - OVERLAYABLE ? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think the variables affected are in ?XD?PLC i.e from 0x56CH to 0x1280. How did you confirm it? If your assumption is correct, OVERLAY doesn't any trouble here. Actually, the map file gives this summary, though the format was not preserved on your post. MODULE INFORMATION: STATIC OVERLAYABLE CODE SIZE = 35996 ---- CONSTANT SIZE = 4376 ---- XDATA SIZE = 3348 24 PDATA SIZE = ---- ---- DATA SIZE = 70 16 IDATA SIZE = ---- ---- BIT SIZE = 35 3 END OF MODULE INFORMATION. The 3348 bytes is assigned to STATIC memory class. And just 24 bytes are OVERLAYABLE. 3348 (decimal) = 0D14H This number corresponds to the size of ?XD?PLC segment. XDATA 056CH 0D14H UNIT ?XD?PLC That is, ?XD?PLC segment is STATIC Tsuneo |
| 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 |