18 Sep
2002
18 Sep
'02
12:16 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 08:05:27AM +0000, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Sorry, I meant "the right thing for MACRO to do". Jerome and you didn't
seem to like the output format as it currently stands. How would you
change it? Jerome apparently wants to add some kind of warning lines.
Would you distinguish between ordinary relocation and PIC?
I'm really asking what the situations are (what the loader is capable of,
how you would define "relocatable" on the -11, tec.) as well as what
algorithms make sense to you.
I've been playing with the -10 where there's only one word per instruction
(though the left and right halves have their own loader flags) and the
address column as well as the data column can have an apostrophe in the
listing. I doubt PIC is a big priority on the -10 because it has always had
base/limit registers and, later, paging.
I tried the real MACRO (under RSX-11M) and it adds an apostrophe to the
initial setting of . (which is what I'd expect, since . was never given
a numeric value, only incremented from its default) but still no apostrophes
after the addresses later in the listing.
-- Derek
On Sep 16, 17:40, Derek Peschel wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:24:02AM +0000, Pete Turnbull wrote:
I'm not
sure I would have defined "relocatable" that way. (Even though
the
program never sets . it isn't marked as
relocatable, and there aren't any
external modules that can be relocated.) But it's still a useful
definition
> if it catches errors. Pete, I
replied to your other post in this thread. I'm just trying to
understand what "the right thing to do" is here.
Well, I'd say the "right thing to do" is to use absolute addressing modes.
What modes 6/7 do is generate references which are relative to the