From: John M. <ato...@gm...> - 2010-11-09 19:13:46
|
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Weddington, Eric <Eri...@at...>wrote: > > > > Eric, > > > > I think transparently placing, for example, const qualified > > objects in flash will only take creating an LLVM > > transformation Pass. Which means the extra work has already > > been done by the LLVM Pass Framework. Now if we have to do > > work in the front end then I can see your point. > > > > --John > > Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't fully grasp what we're talking about here. > > It really is not appropriate to automatically put const qualified objects > in flash. The keyword 'const' has a specific meaning (read-only value) which > does not necessarily mean that it should be put into a specific memory > space, even if it is a read-only value. We will need to have an additional > memory space qualifier on the object to put it in a different address space. > That way it is the least surprise to users who are used to using GCC and IAR > (and other compilers). > > Eric > I don't see why it would be inappropriate from the standpoint of a High Level Language or even C. A linker frees the user from needing to manually place objects and it seems to me having the compiler place const qualified objects in specific areas is no different. I agree that we will still need to support memory space qualifiers. |