On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Hans-Peter,
>
>> Nicely, thanks. While there's a point in keeping just one
>> version for simplicity, the educational point of "here's what
>> you may write which doesn't work, here's the semantically
>> corrected code, and this is what you
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Mark Rages wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Hans-Peter,
> >
> >> Nicely, thanks. While there's a point in keeping just one
> >> version for simplicity, the educational point of "here's what
> >> you may write which doesn't work, here's the s
Hi Hans-Peter,
Nicely, thanks. While there's a point in keeping just one
version for simplicity, the educational point of "here's what
you may write which doesn't work, here's the semantically
corrected code, and this is what you should have written in the
first place" wins, IMHO.
Good. I ha
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > extern char start_of_ROM[], end_of_ROM[], start_of_FLASH[];
> > memcpy (start_of_FLASH, start_of_ROM, end_of_ROM - start_of_ROM);
>
> Actually that *is* a nicer way of writing it.
With two people agreeing, it's almost an objective view. :)
> But, I wrot
Hi Hans-Peter,
extern char start_of_ROM, end_of_ROM, start_of_FLASH;
memcpy (& start_of_FLASH, & start_of_ROM, & end_of_ROM - &
start_of_ROM);
While we're at that example, is there a reason why it is
pretending that the symbols are for variables whose address is
then taken (to get the
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > In ld/ld.texinfo, the following example code is offered:
> >
> > > start_of_ROM = .ROM;
> > > end_of_ROM = .ROM + sizeof (.ROM) - 1;
> > > start_of_FLASH = .FLASH;
> > >
> > > Then the C source code to perform the copy would be:
>
Hi Mark,
In ld/ld.texinfo, the following example code is offered:
start_of_ROM = .ROM;
end_of_ROM = .ROM + sizeof (.ROM) - 1;
start_of_FLASH = .FLASH;
Then the C source code to perform the copy would be:
extern char start_of_ROM, end_of_ROM, start_of_FLASH;
memcpy (& start_o
