Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!cbmvax!higgin
From: higgin@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Manx assembler/linker problem?
Message-ID: <689@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Sep-86 18:31:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.689
Posted: Mon Sep  1 18:31:41 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Sep-86 04:06:09 EDT
References: <436@vger.UUCP>
Reply-To: higgin@cbmvax.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 46
Keywords: Manx

In article <436@vger.UUCP> waterfal@vger.UUCP (Douglas Waterfall) writes:
>Help!
>
>	I am porting a large (100k) program written in another dialect of 68k
>assembly language using the assembler from the Manx C package.  The Manx
>assembler and/or the linker seems to have problems whith PC relative
>addressing.  The following code fragment shows the problem.  The assembler
>will assemble the code without any errors but the linker reports the following
>message:
>
> file filename: Branch out of range @pc=xx     (xx varies)
>
>	What is strange about the error is that it depends on the amount of
>code preceding the instruction.  If the constant block is 96 hex or less the
>linker does not report an error.  If the size is 97 hex or greater the linker
>reports the error.  Using the constant block makes demonstrating the error
>simpler, placing code there has the same effect.  Even stranger the error
>occurs regardless of the opcode used (and, jmp, move).
>	Since the code works correctly with other machines using different
>assemblers (4.2BSD) the problem seems to be with the Manx package.  Is there
>something wrong or am I missing something obvious?
>
>assemble with
>	as -c -d filename
>
>link with
>	ln filename
>
>######cut######
>			cseg
>; $96 & down works
>; $97 & up does not work
>			dcb.b	$97
>			and.l	$20(PC,D1)    ; pc@($20,D1)
>
>######cut######

I expect the problem is something to do with the optimization of the
assembler turning something into a short offset.  You can turn off the
optimization with the -n option.  Try this.  Alternatively, try putting
the data in a dseg, or bss.

	Hope this helps,
		Paul Higginbottom

Disclaimer: The above reflects only my own opinions.