I'm not sure why the previous editions didn't get though. On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Eric Weddington wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Michael Hennebry > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:02 AM > > To: Joerg Wunsch > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [avr-chat] Re: GUI wrapper for avrdude > > > > Even with hex files, there are alternatives to fixed offsets. > > The bytes, if any, after the first record that > > specifies zero bytes could go into eeprom. > > Their addresses would be taken mod eeprom size. > > The byte, if any, after the second record that > > specifies zero bytes would go into lfuse. > > No. > > > We might also consider adding record type 8. > > No. > > The offsets are, at least, minimally intrusive, and fit somewhat within the > standard Intel Hex file format. I will not change the basic Intel Hex File > format. We could also abuse record type 2. I'm not sure what the measure of intrusivenes is. We're both suggesting keeping the syntax and changing the semantics. Tools would need revising in either case. With a new record type, an unaware tool is more likely to complain than to blindly do the wrong thing. > I will note that Rick Altherr has given a set of patches on the avr-libc-dev > list to implement setting fuses within an application. > > Patches to avrdude are welcome to read an ELF file, and to program flash, > eeprom, and fuses from a single ELF file. How do you feel about wrappers? http://www.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu/~hennebry/avrelfsuit -- Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Horse guts never lie." -- Cherek Bear-Shoulders _______________________________________________ AVR-chat mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat
