Address the issue when absolute RAM addresses overlap with relative ROM #136
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Because of the specifics of Mesen label files, where ROM labels are relative, there could be (and in my case was) a case where RAM variable absolute address (e.g. 0x600) overlaps with relative bank address (0x8600), which results in wiz not emitting label for whatever comes the second.
This fix ensures that address ownership is checked by label type, not just by address.
So... I don't love this bugfix, but I'm also not C++ developer. Please feel free to give any feedback, and I can fix it better.
I know DebugFormatContext shares addressOwnership with other debug outputs, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to either change it, or add mlb specific one.