| Jan Waclawek 03/07/10 10:44 Read: 191 times Bratislava Slovakia |
#173918 - "magic" Responding to: Robert Revens's previous message |
Robert Revens said:
*.rel files are SDCC's object files, so surely what the above is saying is that foomain.rel, foo1.rel and foo2.rel would only be linked, and NOT recompiled? Yes. SDCC recognizes the extension of file name(s) entered as parameters, and decides whether to compile or/and link based on them. (As a consequence, source files MUST have .c extension!) I don't like this concept, as it is example of the software trying to do "smart" things for the user, "guess" the user's intention, and I don't like that. I like to be the one in charge, to have full control (e.g. through command-line switches, explicitly commanding linking, in this case). Quite an example why I hate C, btw... ;-) JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC download | Erik Malund | 03/05/10 11:53 |
| Here you go... | Robert Revens | 03/05/10 12:13 |
| newest | Jan Waclawek | 03/05/10 12:30 |
Has any effort gone into documentation?  | Richard Erlacher | 03/05/10 18:20 |
| documentation | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 03:16 |
| Just to add... | Robert Revens | 03/06/10 04:02 |
| more howto-s | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 05:13 |
| the first 'oddity' is ... | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 06:46 |
| I think you dreamt that one eric | Jez Smith | 03/06/10 07:27 |
| No - it's a well-known Gotcha! in SDCC! | Andy Neil | 03/06/10 11:46 |
| Reference: ISRs (or prototypes) must be in same file as main | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 01:04 |
| linking | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 14:36 |
| I see it not correct | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 14:51 |
| I don't understand | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 15:04 |
| what is it you do not understand? | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 07:11 |
| Does it not recognise... | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 07:25 |
| Surely not... | Robert Revens | 03/07/10 08:42 |
| "magic" | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:44 |
| That's not the fault of 'C'!! | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 13:14 |
| highly unusal, but | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 18:42 |
| Try java etc | Oliver Sedlacek | 03/08/10 07:54 |
| I now see why is this confusing | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:27 |
| emulation? | Andy Peters | 03/11/10 15:53 |
| Source-level debug | Robert Revens | 03/11/10 16:15 |
| symbol information | Maarten Brock | 03/12/10 04:05 |
| re: symbol information | Andy Peters | 03/15/10 18:40 |
| hex-file download? | Maarten Brock | 03/16/10 05:46 |
hex vs omf | Andy Peters | 03/16/10 12:08 |
| Keil proprietary stuff? | Andy Neil | 03/12/10 05:01 |
| extended omf51 | Juergen Christoph | 03/12/10 07:11 |
| omf51 vs cdb | Jan Waclawek | 03/15/10 16:48 |
| proprietary file format? | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 01:22 |
| I don't see why not | Andy Neil | 03/15/10 01:33 |
| So, what do *you* mean by, "proprietary" ? | Andy Neil | 03/16/10 02:15 |
| AutoCAD | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 03:15 |
| Yes | Per Westermark | 03/15/10 01:37 |
| patentable vs proprietary | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 23:39 |
| Proprietary is a questin of ownership, not protection | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 01:06 |
| bouncing email | Maarten Brock | 03/07/10 14:38 |