Re: [avr-gcc-list] Structs in program memory.

[E. Weddington]

On 28 Apr 2004 at 9:35, David Brown wrote:

> 
> I have not looked much into the "guts" of gcc, other than getting an m68k
> interrupt patch to work on a different version of the compiler, but I've

(OT: I'm working on building an m68k toolset right now....)

> compiled and used it on about half a dozen different architectures.  It
> strikes me that there would be scope for benifits on many targets if the
> concept of memory spaces were in the core of gcc (as an example for
> non-microcontrollers, "small data segment" data could benifit from the same
> ideas).  Perhaps if there are enough of such benifits on "big" cpus, it
> would be possible to get more support for memory spaces?

I don't think there is a problem with support for the feature. I think it's an 
issue of time, how 
invasive it is, and a volunteer willing and capable to do it.
 
> Would it be practical to deal with program memory (and io space) using C++
> types and function (and, in particular, operator) overloading?  I know it
> would be possible, but could it be done in such a way that the resulting
> code is (at least close to) optimal, rather than generating piles of extra
> code to handle inheritance and method tables?
> 

Got me. All of the current main AVR toolset developers that I know of don't do 
much C++. 
You'll have to do the investigating.