|Object Module Formats email@example.com (2001-09-05)|
|Re: Object Module Formats firstname.lastname@example.org (david lindauer) (2001-09-11)|
|Re: Object Module Formats email@example.com (Paul Carroll) (2001-09-11)|
|Re: Object Module Formats firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-09-11)|
|Re: Object Module Formats email@example.com (Aaron Gray) (2001-09-11)|
|Re: Object Module Formats firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-09-16)|
|Re: Object Module Formats email@example.com (david lindauer) (2001-09-20)|
|From:||david lindauer <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||11 Sep 2001 00:16:30 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||11 Sep 2001 00:16:30 EDT|
"Oleg T." wrote:
> What is the most suitable Object Module Format for cross assemblers,
The 'most suitable' really depends on the processor you are targeting.
The standard usage for each processor is a little different - and this
makes a difference because ICE and simulator tools that you may not
wish to develop yourself will conform to the standard usage for the
given processor. Sometimes an ICE will allow usage of one of several
standard formats (for the given processor) but I have seen situations
where the ICE for one processor won't understand formats that the ICE
for another processor will understand.
IEEE-695 is a very nice format, very flexible and relatively easy to
implement, but it may not be practical for the processor you are
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.