Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!bu-cs!mirror!billc
From: billc@mirror.UUCP (Bill Callahan @ Mirror)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: multiple SEGMENTS, i need to split up my code
Keywords: segments
Message-ID: <21206@mirror.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 88 15:32:29 GMT
References: <14349@genrad.UUCP> <8392@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <14484@genrad.UUCP> <1706@se-sd.sandiego.ncr.com> <14794@genrad.UUCP>
Reply-To: billc@prism.TMC.COM (Bill Callahan - The Movie)
Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge Mass.
Lines: 25

In article <14794@genrad.UUCP> cig@genrad.UUCP (Charles I. Ganimian Jr.) writes:
>
>
>	Yes thanks, now for the next question... do I need / want to
>	name and list the segments in the .def file or do the automagically
>	end up LOADONCALL DISCARDABLE
>

This is a matter of programming style.  Personally, I name mine because I
don't trust defaults.  Actually, 'not trust' is the wrong term.  I like to
state things explicitly so that when some future programmer inherits my
code, he or she won't have to get out a manual to try to figure out what the
linker will do.  Stating them explicitly also make changing the
characterics more straight-forward.  I often will make a particular segment
be temporarily FIXED during debugging  (see my earlier article on the
infamous SymDeb INT3 bug.)  It's also nice to have a list of what your
segments are, rather than forcing someone to go through the makefile to
check compiler options to figure out what they are.  But do what you like.


Bill Callahan			 billc@mirror.TMC.COM
		{mit-eddie, pyramid, wjh12, xait, datacube}!mirror!billc
Mirror Systems
2067 Massachusetts Ave.		617\661-0777	x149
Cambridge, MA  02140