On Saturday 13 January 2001 16:59, Ben Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Mike Pumford wrote:
> > I noticed that. I had a quick look at the bootloader and that would need
> > some hacking if the kernel was rebased as it assumes that the kernel
> > starts at 0xf0000000. I cannot speak for the new bootloader written by
> > Reinoud Zandijk but it may need similar tweakings.
>
> Since a.out files don't contain the address to load things at, the
> bootloader has to have wired-in knowledge of where the kernel goes.  ELF,
> of course, doesn't suffer from this.

Yep.  I've got some changes done that move some of the hard coded values 
relative to the VM address for them in the headers.  Anyone willing to check 
the diff?

> It's also worth noting that libkvm currently has the value of
> VM_MAXUSER_ADDRESS compiled into it, so changing it may cause
> compatibility issues there.

Well if we break it we break it.  don't get me wrong, I just prefer the view 
that if we can improve the code.  current is pretty broken as it stands for 
arm32 without doing these changes. breaking top, ps and progs of that ilk is 
not too bad.  (they are the progs that use libkvm aren't they?)

Chris