 | | text location for apps and q? —Imel Sayang
|
| | | hi all, in Makefile.user there are BASE1 and BASE2 which point to 0xb000 and 0xb210. are those address changeable or are they defined by h8/300 platform? also what is makelx? what does it do with .ds1 and .ds2 which both are the same object file? (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Luis Villa
|
| | | | | (...) I don't recall for certain, but I think that those are hardware specific. You could always try changing them to see what happens :) (Anyone who is more up-to-date on the compiler magic, feel free to correct me.) (...) Unfortunately, there are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Imel Sayang
|
| | | | | | (...) when i remove -O from my Makefile the kernel grew bigger, and crossed 0xb000, so i changed it accordingly, and that didn't work. so i guess there is 16k limitation for kernel and user program. (...) too bad, but there's not much to work on (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Michael Ash
|
| | | | | | | (...) I just have to ask why you're doing this, just for the heck of it? I mean, the output device you're writing two can hold a whopping five characters at a time. I don't really see the benefit of changing to a more complicated interface. Of (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) You can't implement a true fork() anyway, since you don't have memory management and therefore can't copy the address space of the parent process. John A. Tamplin LiveOnTheNet.COM, Inc. jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 256/705-7007 - (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Imel Sayang
|
| | | | | | | | (...) for the output device thing, the lcd isn't the only device. sensors and motors are also can be implemented as files. (...) well it's still just an idea, maybe the fork() will turn out as rfork(). doesn't really matter now. but see my other (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Michael Ash
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ok, but why? Again, if you're just having fun, go for it, but don't expect it to be useful. Personally, the current interface is simple and highly functional, and a change to a file paradigm would just make it more complicated with no benefit. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, as someone else has said in this thread, if you're doing it for fun, or to learn more about memory management / file systems, etc, then got for it. But I wouldn't expect much of it to be included in the official versions - you've got to (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Luis Villa
|
| | | | | | | Yeah. I have to agree with Ross. Increased unix-ness would be nice, but additional complexity with no actual performance gain most definitely is not. That said, like the remote patch that I'll post sometime this weekend, I'll take patches for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Imel Sayang
|
| | | | | | (...) But also for luis, it's not just about performance, it's about interface. of course there's always hack value, but it also might be useful. like many people would expect printf() or write() to stdout instead of cputs(). i don't think there's a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Jochen Hoenicke
|
| | | | | | Hello, (...) No they don't have a separate address space. I think the limit is 19456 bytes for the kernel, and this is caused by a limitation of the ROM, which is used to download the firmware (kernel). It loads it to the address range 8000-cc00. (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Luis Villa
|
| | | | Ooops. Did not finish my last email before sending it. (...) It sounds like it was built improperly (i.e., without --exec-prefix). Where did you get it from exactly? Luis ---...--- "It's clear to us that Microsoft isn't the competition anymore. They (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: text location for apps and q? —Imel Sayang
|
| | | | (...) hehehe... (...) my (...) it's from www.nogs.de/legos i think. but it doesn't really matter since i've compiled 2.95.2 and the new binutils. imel (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
