On 15.10.2008 17:34, ron minnich wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
On 15.10.2008 04:54, ron minnich wrote:
return (void *) CONFIG_RAM_STACK_LOCATION;
not quite right? CONFIG_RAM_STACK_LOCATION; + CONFIG_RAM_STACK_SIZE -4?
Actually, that was intentional. You see, we haven't decided on the meaning of the RAM_STACK_LOCATION constant/variable yet. We could very well declare it to be the initial %esp for RAM stacks. Then again, we could also decide that the stack shall be at the top of available RAM, and that would require us to use a variable.
You supply the meaning of the variable, I'll make sure the code matches.
let's call it RAM_TOP_OF_STACK and put it at the standard 88ff
Sorry: RAM_STACK_BASE at 0x88ffc
While I do agree, it may be confusing for some people to have RAM_STACK_BASE denote the upper (as in memory location) end of the stack and CARBASE denote the lower end of the stack.
Suggested fix: Introduce the following #define:
#define CAR_STACK_BASE (CONFIG_CARBASE + CONFIG_CARSIZE - 4)
What do you think?
Regards, Carl-Daniel