Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> To me it seemed that Olin was talking about integrating assembler code
> as pure assembler files, where the assembler code creates everything
> that's necessary to integrate with the C generated code. This includes
> the calling conventions (calling assembler routines from C and calling
> C functions from assembler),

Yes.

> but includes a lot more that needs to be
> taken care of (most notably the linker commands).

Huh?  There are no linker commands in the source code.  By the time the
linker gets hold of the binary files, it doesn't matter what language was
used to create them.  The linker command for including a module is the same
whether it was created by C or ASM.

> You would have in
> your project C files and assembler files with public symbols and link
> them together.

Well, yes, which is no different than having C files and more C files with
public symbols and linking them together.  You seem to have some silly
phobia towards the linker, even though you're not asking it to do anything
different between the two cases, and it's easy to set up in the first placy
anyway.  What is your problem?

> What I called "another way" is that you create C files with rudimentary
> C function bodies (that declare the arguments and local variables in C)
> and put your assembler code inside the C function body.

To the extent that such in-line assembler is documented in the compiler
manual, this is OK.  However, the original question had to do with mixing C
and assembler modules if I recall correctly.

Thinking about it now, I don't remember the OP ever explaining more what he
wanted to do or responding to any of the replies.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist