Hello,
I'm looking into adding support for ATmega256x and larger devices to
the AVR port. This means that program memory addresses no longer fit
in 16 bits - and I'm looking how to avoid making pointers larger.
Jumps and function calls are no problem as long as they use labels
(constant addresse
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:51:05PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - Fully agree, just can't keep from wondering if this may be most
> efficiency accomplish by simply requiring the alignment of all
> function entry points to be two instruction word aligned. Thereby
This only doubles the available
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:38:28PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - understood, however unlikely; observing it will likely take Atmel at
> least 2-3 years to stabilize production of the 256K devices, and larger
> device volume potential vs. competitive offerings couldn't likely justify
> their
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - or possibly GCC may try to be clever by jumping to no-return attribute
> function calls?
Such "trying to be clever" would most likely be optional.
Again, why is indirect_jump _mandatory_ on all machines?
Please, don't try to be t
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:58:29AM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> It is possible in GNU C at least:
>
> int foo(int dest)
> {
>__label__ l1, l2, l3;
>void *lb[] = { &&l1, &&l2, &&l3 };
>int x = 0;
>
>goto *lb[dest];
>
> l1:
>x += 1;
> l2:
>x += 1;
> l3:
>x += 1;
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:29:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The easiest way is to do this in the linker instead of the compiler.
> See the xstormy16 port and how it handles R_XSTORMY16_FPTR16. This
> has the distinct advantage that you do not commit to the creation of
> an indirect jump
