From: Michael Hope <michaelh@ju...> - 2001-02-15 20:42:01
I had a look at combining the z80 and mcs51 linkers back when I first
hooked in the z80 stuff. Unfortunatly we had both diverged in different
ways from the same code base so it was more trouble than it was worth.
Some of the problems were
1. We had branched off diferent version of asxxxx.
2. The extra command line arguments conflict.
3. The object file modifications conflict.
Dont forget that the devices that sdcc targets all have their own
exceptions - for example the Z80 linker is banked, the mcs51 has
different length pointers, and all other kinds of fun stuff. I dont know
how easy a universal linker would be.
From: Michel Van den Bergh <michel.vandenbergh@lu...> - 2001-02-16 10:39:11
> I can give a good reason though why the first gpasm compatible linker will NOT
> be .rel based. One of the goals of gpasm is to maintain MPASM compatibility
> (BTW, Microchip has graciously donated their MPASM assembler regression files to
> us). MPASM does not produce .rel files, obviously. Instead, it produces a very
> coff like format for linking (there's the .cod format too, but that's not for
> linking). gpasm is going to support this linker format so that our users can
> link with MPASM produced libraries.
Yes that's understandable. I see that you are planning to write a linker
specifically for the Pic. Well good luck!