| ??? 01/10/11 12:42 Modified: 01/10/11 12:50 Read: times |
#180498 - Use of __at ? [ed] Responding to: ???'s previous message |
David Prentice said:
... or use the __at modifier in a different macro Is that allowed? IIRC, Keil only allows its _at_ in a definition: http://www.keil.com/support/m...varloc.htm is SDCC the same with its __at ? Update: I checked the SDCC Manual http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/doc/sdccm...ode64.html SDCC Manual, section 3.6, Absolute Addressing said:
Data items can be assigned an absolute address with the at <address> keyword, in addition to a storage class, e.g.:
__xdata __at (0x7ffe) unsigned int chksum; Which looks to me like it is the same as in Keil - ie, it cannot be used as in the XBYTE macro. However, I do entirely agree that defining a suitable symbol with _at_ or __at is better than using XBYTE and similar macros... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| sdcc internal error / C syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| legality of indexing NULL pointer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bug | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| version revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no snapshot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 0 is special - but so is NULL. indexing around NULL is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No guarantee that a NULL pointer points to any memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I know :-( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What is "that way"? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the antique version.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XBYTE macro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Okay, then the following definition... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: David's remarks about volatility | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Close, but no cigar | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid the 'volatile' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| instead of offsetting... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dereferencing a '_REG | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use of __at ? [ed] | 01/01/70 00:00 |