The way we want to use the INITBSS segment - and especially the fact that it won't have the type bss on all ROM based targets - means that the name INITBSS is misleading. After all INIT is the best name from my perspective as it serves several purposes and therefore needs a rather generic name.
Unfortunately this means that the current INIT segment needs to be renamed too. Looking for a short (ideally 4 letter) name I came up with ONCE as it contains all code (and data) accessed only once during initialization.
So far the INIT segment was run from the later heap+stack. Now the INIT segment is run from the later BSS. The background is that so far the INIT segment was pretty small (from $80 to $180 bytes). But upcoming changes will increase the INIT segment in certain scenarios up to ~ $1000 bytes. So programs with very limited heap+stack might just not been able to move the INIT segment to its run location. But moving the INIT segment to the later BSS allows it to occupy the later BSS+heap+stack.
In order to allow that the constructors are _NOT_ allowed anymore to access the BSS. Rather they must use the DATA segment or the new INITBSS segment. The latter isn't cleared at any point so the constructors may use it to expose values to the main program. However they must make sure to always write the values as they are not pre-initialized.
A description of positions [left, right] is appropriate more for C code than for Assembly code. (A description of timing [first argument, second argument] is more appropriate for the way that Assembly code is written.)
- No complex shell logic.
- "Source file shadowing" for all targets via vpath.
- Dependency handling.
- True incremental build.
- Don't write into source directories.
- Easy cleanup by just removing 'wrk'.
that call C code, we don't need to save the register bank, because the C code
will save it, when needed.
git-svn-id: svn://svn.cc65.org/cc65/trunk@5909 b7a2c559-68d2-44c3-8de9-860c34a00d81
