 | | 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)
| | | | | | |
