Dear all, Would it be possible to modify the compiler behaviour to what Cashe proposed?
I would also expect that the following: __xdata __at 0x2000 int int_1, int_2; generates int at 2000 and the next at 2002. Alex > Hi all, > The chapter 3.5 of sdcc manual describes how to assign an absolute address to > variable, but says nothing about what happens when you try to define more > than one member in one statement: > __xdata __at 0x2000 int int_1, int_2; > Maybe it's a good idea to clarify the compiler's behaviour in this case? All > members will have same address of 0x2000 in union-like manner. I think most > of programmers expecting int_2 at 0x2002 and so on. Just add a couple lines > to the doc to save programmers time. > Thanks, > Mr.Cashe ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
