[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] EmuTOS for ColdFire
- To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
- Subject: Re: [MiNT] EmuTOS for ColdFire
- From: Thomas Huth <th.huth@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:21:01 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KRV9SjvVLRY5NzSOteip9w4Ktxe2yydiV8SEpGFcCnE=; b=o1WmOBBSFLyOKG6EeWyq3a9nfA2CrJqYnCgtxoTHeqTTBoNfVztdDRAo0hLj+TubdK 2an2F/AfFHoFowRSkPn/JEa2qdsRK4BipKU3pu2aNTO/vrAg8h7r8/9AK8JSjj7omSrW QDFPlm0ZqCvDVythfnAx+i4MY10XMh6QS7+lw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=omvd5eWxXTB3/Y8DTQUs8GmkMPOs7zN6YheYnQIB4jJMDCicbx47USM05db6ze9IB/ bvf3pMENp4ZNCUTR6zzrCEhOVOH6BmdOfRPewj01nRYbJlBECwhKSpHLl6Fj+qsZo0Hb X9ZQJVuGVwM0WPevGc/fxiHPmIm1QiPDYoQ+Q=
- In-reply-to: <3324145282.1572980930@[192.168.178.12]>
- List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
- List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
- List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
- List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <C61D85E7.16762%atari@bright.net> <68EF70E911F44CB4AC7C90F286219FC1@joevenlt> <49F8D39B.3080303@chello.nl> <3324014950.7760261950@[192.168.178.12]> <20090501111726.70e28da6@phineus> <3324108430.345782912@[192.168.178.12]> <49FC2D44.5040707@freesbee.fr> <3324145282.1572980930@[192.168.178.12]>
- Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
On Sat, 2 May 2009 21:41:22 +0200
Gerhard Stoll <gerhard_stoll@gmx.de> wrote:
> Vincent Rivière wrote:
>
> > The ColdFire family must not be seen like the successor of the
> > 680x0 family, but like some kind of cousin.
>
> What I mean is, if a program use the _CPU cookie to test what
> stackframe the CPU have or some other functions. Is then five ok or
> not?
I think you can ignore the "5" for the _CPU cookie in EmuTOS. The
current code does not run on ColdFire anyway.
If EmuTOS really runs on ColdFire one day, I think we should choose a
proper value for the _CPU cookie, for example the reset value of D0
which contains the ColdFire core version and some other useful
information (see ColdFire Family Programmer's Reference Manual by
Freescale).
Thomas