Re: Object Module Formats

david lindauer <dlindauer@notifier-is.net>
11 Sep 2001 00:16:30 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Object Module Formats old_dnepr@yahoo.com (2001-09-05)
Re: Object Module Formats dlindauer@notifier-is.net (david lindauer) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats p_carroll@yahoo.com (Paul Carroll) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats vbdis@aol.com (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats aarongray@beeb.net (Aaron Gray) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats old_dnepr@yahoo.com (2001-09-16)
Re: Object Module Formats dlindauer@notifier-is.net (david lindauer) (2001-09-20)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: david lindauer <dlindauer@notifier-is.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Sep 2001 00:16:30 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 01-09-019
Keywords: linker
Posted-Date: 11 Sep 2001 00:16:30 EDT

"Oleg T." wrote:
> What is the most suitable Object Module Format for cross assemblers,
> compilers?


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
targeting.


David

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.