Re: @far directive not working as expected


Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
cyberzl1@xxxxxxxxx <cyberzl1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And why is that bad? Is that architecture of addressing functions as
^-- insert "incapable" here
"far" if they are in "near space"? Are you running out of "near"
space?

That is bad because I wanted it in far space.

That's not bad in and of itself. It's only bad if this actually
prevents the program from working. Does it?
Agreed that in itself is not necessarily bad. Bad, because it is
putting more stuff in near space than will fit. Part of the issue is
that "near space" overlaps the last two pages of far space. Basically
the last two pages of memory can be addressed w/ either addressing
method to reach code/data in them.

This is preventing the program from working. It is creating an
overlapping segment which is also concerning me. I have had the linker
warn me before when it has done this, but it is not for this scenario(I
think because of the two different addressing schemes it is not
recognizing that it has done so).



I tried to put in far space for a reason. Near space is my limiting
factor right now.

So: is the link failing, or the program failing to run, because of
this? Have you, or have you not, actually run out of near space?

Assuming "near space" is a subset of "far space" on your architecture,
a linker that fills up unused parts of near space with functions from
"far" space doesn't do anything wrong.

I have this configured to place all far space code starting at the
"beginning" of far code space. It should place everything in far code
until it is out of space. I have put too much stuff in far space (on
purpose) and received the expected errors.(using the max size options)
I am not running out of far space, so I don't know why it selectively
choose to put this singular function in near space.

JW

.