Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!oliveb!pyramid!decwrl!labrea!rocky!rokicki
From: rokicki@rocky.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Difference in Aztec and Lattice Executables
Message-ID: <298@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7-May-87 23:58:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocky.298
Posted: Thu May  7 23:58:17 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 9-May-87 08:37:09 EDT
References: <8705080053.AA10033@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Department
Lines: 15
Summary: To allow short addressing . . .

dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
> 	I've noticed that Lattice uses a BSS hunk for BSS data in its 
> executables, where as Aztec places it in the DATA hunk by specifying a
> larger buffer for the DATA hunk in the table section of the HEADER
> hunk than the actual DATA hunk contains.
> 	(Just in case anybody is interested.... this isn't a bug or anything)
> I'm just wondering why Manx opted for putting it in the DATA hunk?
> 				-Matt

My guess is that this makes it easy to use 16-bit address-register
relative addressing, rather than 32-bit absolute addressing.  Does
Lattice also use this trick when in it's small memory model mode?
Is there an advantage to using the BSS hunk over the DATA hunk?

-tom