Ich denke dass du auf ein Amerikanishes Sprechwort
Gestussen hasst:
You're between a rock and a hard place!

Let's look at the description of libs and see if
they too are processor specific like object files
apparently are.

In fact I'll try it here in a bit...  -W

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin SchŠfer [mailto:schaefer@ELEKTRONIK21.DE]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:07 PM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: relocatable code for different processors


Walter wrote:

> I "THINK" that if you are VERY careful,

Of course ...

> you "could" use libraries for families of processors.
> EX: Polled mode SPI routines "should" be the same for
> all mid-range processors that include the SSP module.
> So assuming the above EXample, then that lib with SPI
> stuff in it, would be (basically) processor independant
> across those mid-range processors that include the SSP
> module.  So once the processor is configured to use
> the SPI then you could just call the various SPI
> routines.  I use SPI as an example because I think
> I am very close to having a set of rountines that
> I could make into a library (read: I havn't changed
> code in a long time.)

Ok, that's what I thought, too. There are families of processors where the
relocatables look exactly the same.

But now you have not solved the following problem: If you compile the
relocatable, you have to define a SINGLE processor (even the A or B suffix
should match!). Otherwise MPASM wont compile. If you have done so, the
processor type is remembered in the object file. If you want this object
file to be linked in another project with another processor, the linking
will fail, because the objects have different types of processors defined.
That was my initial question. Perhaps I have not explained it clear enough.



martin

;**********************************************
;**   name:      Martin Schaefer             **
;**   company:   elektronik 21 GmbH, Germany **
;**   e-mail:    schaefer@elektronik21.de    **
;**********************************************