Patch committed in r1071, thanks.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
On 10.12.2008 23:02, Myles Watson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
You're welcome. I admit that off-by-one errors are pretty hard to spot and your code really looked correct at the first glance. We have an old saying at my university about such bugs: "Programmers are either off by one or by a factor of two." It happened to me often enough. ;-)
On 10.12.2008 22:51, Corey Osgood wrote:
Per Segher's email I'd prefer to go with Carl-Daniel's original suggestion of using 0x100000000.
Sounds good.
Even though the Kconfig solution proposed was ugly, could we think of a different one that would still live in Kconfig. It seems a lot nicer to catch it during configuration than during the build.
Yes and no, IMO. Yes in that, well, it gets caught earlier. No because there's no real way (that I know of...) to explain through Kconfig that the reason you can't set a larger ROM size is because of the CAR area, which could leave some users confused.
-Corey