I'm still here, but reluctant to say much beyond my comment about comparing the op code output from other assemblers.
Poor writing skills often make it very difficult to parse technical documentation which in turn leads implementors to interpret the documentation differently. I have a degree in English lit, so I notice ambiguous writing a lot. Have you looked at the objects w/ nm? I wouldn't be surprised if the disassembly process resolved symbols for you w/o comment. So my inclination would be to use nm & od to compare the results as having less likelihood of being fooled by a "helpful" programmer. My expectation would be that a symbolic constant which is defined in the input file would be resolved at assembly time and that a symbolic constant which is not defined in the input file would be resolved at link time. There's nothing MSP430 or gcc related in this expectation. Rather it's based on my experience w/ compilers and linkers on lots of different systems. General rule is earliest possible resolution, least scope consistent w/ the source and single pass link. All of those are in turn based on complexity constraints. As much as I hate Windows, if you send me some .s files I'll do whatever translation is required and assemble them w/ Kickstart & Code Composer. Have Fun! Reg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Mspgcc-users mailing list Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
