| ??? 05/16/10 18:43 Read: times |
#175940 - omf smaller than hex Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Erik Malund said:
The size of the .cdb seems right, but a .omf (the one with no extension from SDCC) that is smaller than the .hex (.ihx from SDCC) is impossible. Why would that be impossible? How did you come to that conclusion? What makes you believe it is not "full"? OMF is a binary format, whereas intelhex, as you know, is ASCII, inflating the size significantly. I assume a pure binary of your experiment would come out somewhere around 2-3kB. .cdb is the native SDCC debug format, which is ASCII and rather sparse. I fully agree. What made you think so? But take also into account that the OMF file only conforms to the original intel standard and not to the extended (Keil) format. So there is no type information and not even case sensitivity. We do not have a spec of the extended version and even if we had I don't know if it would be allowed to implement it. Some figures of one of my projects: hex file : 105 kB cbd file : 773 kB omf file : 59 kB Erik Malund said:
why it comes out w/o extension Intel made this choice when they invented it and it has been used by many other compiler sets after them including Keil I believe. Erik Malund said:
and why .hex is .ihx Intel did not define the extension for this file I believe and it historically grew this way. You can set it yourself b.t.w. with the -o option when linking. Erik Malund said:
PS how can something with such a major defect even be considered a release. Who does the testing? Apart from the daily regression tests we also test a release by putting it up for beta testing and ask users to test it. I myself usually try some of my larger projects with it. Then after a few weeks if nothing comes up it is released. We do not and can not claim that it is bugfree, but the brokenness you suggest here would surely have surfaced by now in our bugtracker. Jan Waclawek said:
And, there is no formal process to assess the expectations of potential users, AFAIK. It would be hard to do that, given the number of developers and given that most (all) of them do this as a hobby, besides regular job. AFAIK there are no full-time-paid developers on SDCC nor massive corporate funding as gcc enjoys for example. All sdcc developers are volunteers with a normal day job. We are not funded by anyone. I too hate the saying "you get what you pay for" but you're also not entitled to more than you already got. We usually give support but we cannot promise it. I also do not think you should fix it yourself just because you can. You are allowed and welcomed to fix it though. What does hurt me is if people complain about it in a non-sdcc-owned forum without using the sdcc forum / tracker / mailing list. We cannot solve problems that we do not know about. Maarten |
