On 10/9/07, Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Slide wrote: > > On 10/9/07, Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Slide wrote: > >>> All, > >>> > >>> Does eCos work if I build for PIC? I would like to be able to move my > >>> application around in memory as much as possible. > >> In general, PIC code suffers both size and performance penalties. > >> eCos is all about the most configurable (and hopefully most > >> optimal) solution, so we've never supported PIC. > >> > >> Why would you want to do this? > >> > > > > > > Perhaps I am just thinking about this the wrong way then. What I would > > like is an application image that I can load to any address I want. My > > bootloader will handle setting up virtual memory, so I guess all I > > really have to do is compile for a constant virtual address which will > > be mapped by my bootloader to any of the memory regions I am > > interested in. Does this sound like a better solution? > > Yes, this is the basic approach taken by eCos, although in general > there's no "virtual" memory mapping involved. > > BTW, please keep your replies on the list so that all may > benefit. Private email [with MLB Associates] is available > only with a support contract. > > --
Sorry, gmail tends to do that to me. Thanks for the information. slide -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
