Colin Tuckley wrote:
> Nick Bane wrote:
>
>
>>That is very surprising indeed. I will get TCL to check that the one I
>>am building works/fails. In the meantime I have built the small versions
>>of 30/31/32/33 and put then in the dev branch of releases on husaberg
>>for you to test. If you find one that works and another that doesn't it
>>will give a clue. Do call me on 01954 719270 if you want to talk.
>
>
> Ok, I've given those a go.
>
> The 30 version is a "slow" not a "small" it does work.
>
Right. All my "smalls" (no amusements intended) are slow as they are
intended to be universal for TCL.
> V 31, 32 and 33 all work.
>
> I tried bootldr.small-gcc2.95 again and that still fails. This is what you
> pulled from svn isn't it so it's from a 36 source. Can we try gcc 2.95
> versions of 34 and 35?
>
Those were all interims that got binned if I recall correctly. I'll send
one my latest small in bootldr36-3-6-2006 2.95s and see if its a
difference between me and you.
> I'm beginning to suspect that maybe some of the changes I've made to the 36
> source to make it compile with gcc 3.3 are what is causing the problem -
> even when built with gcc 2.95
>
>
>>The whole point about bootldr.small is that it knows about NOR and
>>serial and nothing else so it should work with any loon2.
>
>
> Ah, I didn't realise that it was quite *that* cut down.
>
JFlash speed was the object.
>
>>Nearly a Zafira. Checking suitabilty (ie not raging unsuitability) for
>>eldest daughter learning to drive in it was successful. Now to hunt the
>>right one down.
>
>
> Ah, the joys of teaching ones children to drive, fortunately that is all
> behind me.
>
> Colin
>
(text/plain)