From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2005-03-30 13:41:56
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:10:04AM +0200, fachat wrote:
> I would like to make a small survey about who is using the o65 file format
> for what purpose. Before I am going to make some incompatible changes, I
> should know what features are actually used and must thus be considered
> "compatible".
For cc65 this is somewhat difficult, because it's both, a tool chain and an
implementation (in the library). The cc65 library uses o65 for loadable
drivers. These drivers do not use imported or exported symbols because of the
additional overheader necessary. However, the linker is able to support
imports and exports, so people can (and do) use them.
> 1) What are you using o65 for?
a.) Loadable modules (can be viewed either as "executables" or as "overlays").
b.) ld65 can also generate executable programs in o65 format for use with
other operating systems. Currently this is in experimental use in Lunix
(as far as I know).
> 2) For what CPUs are you using the format?
6502/C02. Support for 65816 can be added if there is a need for it.
> 3) What special features are you using?
The cc65 module loader expects the "simple" format. The linker is able to
generate other formats as well.
> 4) What special features are you not using?
65816 mode. There may be some support for it in the linker, but it's
untested.
cc65 itself (that is: the library) won't use exports and imports.
o65 is not used as an object code format. Because of its simplicity (which,
as said before, is also its advantage) it is missing features for this
purpose.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.