On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 08:21:37AM -0600, Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > Sounds to me as if you are making the "bootloader" too big and > > > should simply link an entire application for every possible > > > target. What you are doing would make more sense if the loadable > > > modules could run out of RAM. > > That would be no use, the loadables must be non-volatile. This is a > > tester that will be sent to a factory (somewhere). When a new > > product is to be tested, I can e-mail them the test routine which > > they then burn into flash (each of these is 0x900 bytes, there can > > be up to 0x0a of them). > > Why is this method superior to having a regular bootloader, and you > have N applications, where each application is the individual test > routine and the common portion? Why do you have create this custom > interface which has its own set of problems? Alternatively, creating a > custom Makefile to handle building 10 different applications is > certainly easier in comparison.
I agree, thats how I would handle it. Either build a custom linked application for each customer or provide the customer with the tools to build one of their own. What he is trying to do is in effect create a run time program linker. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
