[MSX-C] Q&A official thread

Master (165)

24-03-2023, 21:22

DarkSchneider wrote:

I am experiencing many issues with SDCC when choose it as compiler on z88dk, the SmallC compiler seems much more robust and smarter for writing code. I.e. with SmallC I can define a fixed address directly as pointer:

#define g_myvar ((MyStruct*)*(void*)0xAAAA)

As use it directly as a pointer variable:

g_myvar = malloc();
...
g_myvar->member = ...

This doesn't work on SDCC, and must be changed to:

#define g_myvar_address (uint16_t*)0xAAAA
#define g_myvar ((MyStruct*)g_myvar_address)

And then cannot use directly to update the address, has to use it separately:

*g_myvar_address = malloc();
...
g_myvar->member = ...

This works without errors or warnings:

MyStruct* __at (0xAAAA) g_myvar = malloc(some_value);
...
g_myvar->member = ...

بواسطة pizzapower

Master (165)

24-03-2023, 22:35

But I found your syntax confusing. If I were to write it all in a single macro, I would use:

#pragma disable_warning 88 // disable warning about casting literal value to pointer

#define g_myvar (*((MyStruct**)0xAAAA))

g_myvar = malloc();
...
g_myvar->member = ...

I don't think even gcc or clang accept that macro syntax from your sample code.

بواسطة DarkSchneider

Paladin (1019)

25-03-2023, 09:52

SmallC does. Also it means "use as struct pointer what is at address", as the casting is made right-to-left, I see it less confusing than a double pointer with a * at top left, as I want to get clear that is a struct pointer, instead the data at (typical of a * at left). Notice that I don't even need to force a disable warning, so I see it more intuitive.
If the double pointer was enough then fine, but at the moment I see a * at left, don't like.

Specific extensions is better to avoid.

بواسطة pizzapower

Master (165)

25-03-2023, 14:38

I don't think it's about intuitiveness, warnings came later on with standardisation to tell the user that they could be potentially shooting themselves on the foot. But, in a dialect that is common enough in resource-limited computing and low-level programming, we disable it just to suppress the message.

DarkSchneider wrote:

Specific extensions is better to avoid.

With the standardisation of C, I think that the cast you used is considered the "extension" today since most C compilers in ANSI-C mode would complain.

بواسطة DarkSchneider

Paladin (1019)

25-03-2023, 14:21

Then splitting is better than using an exclusive extension. This said without trying to check if is or not compliant.