2009/11/2 David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net>: > On Monday 02 November 2009, Pieter Conradie wrote: >> ... >> SVN2645: works >> SVN2646: broken >> ... >> It appears that SVN2646 did break it. > > So this *is* a regression.
Maybe maybe not... I was 100% convinced it was a regression in 2646, but the logs from the two versions show that the working area allocated differs(because MMU is enabled w/2646 test run?) for the two versions and it makes no sense that the working area would be different between the two versions. I've asked Pieter to run w/the new patch I wrote which will provide better feedback. I *suspect* that 2645 can be made to fail as well... Timing? > This seems like a "must fix" for 0.3.0 ... It's been broken for a long time. I don't know when 2646 was compared to 0.2... Don't know offhand how to check that w/git. -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
