[Oberon] 1G RAM in Emulated RISC Oberon
chuck at kuracali.com
Sun Jun 22 16:09:33 CEST 2014
On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Peter De Wachter <pdewacht at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll take a look, but I feel it's a bit outside the scope of my
> emulator. Essentially, I see the emulator as a substitute for the FPGA
> board, as an aid for readers of the Project Oberon book. As such, I'm
> interested in patches that either improve the fidelity of the emulation
> or that make the emulator easier to use (the screen size patches fall in
> the second category), but I'm not really interested in turning the
> emulator into a platform for some new system. Michael Schierl seems more
> interested in traveling in that direction.
I see, please take whatever you find useful from my patches and discard the rest!
I appreciate that you have made your code available to learn from and to use. Being
able to conveniently run this latest, simplest Oberon has been very helpful to me.
I agree with Michael, I think that an Oberon-in-Oberon emulator is a natural
progression, especially if or when V5 Oberon is ported to a larger/faster FPGA or
back again to the Intel or ARM.
> On 21-06-14 21:46, Charles Perkins wrote:
>> I have modified the oberon-risc-emu a little bit more so that I can have a large heap and
>> more space for modules.
>> Now I have a 1GB of RAM in my RISC V5 Oberon system.
>> I have updated my patches for the emulator but I expect to
>> discard my patches as Peter finds cleaner ways to incorporate the functionality.
>> Thank you Peter for the alternate framebuffer merging!
>> Like we said elsewhere, I think its important to keep backwards compatibility with the FPGA risc
>> image so that we can have a coherent new system. Peter's changes nicely maintain compatibility.
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Peter De Wachter <pdewacht at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The bootloader doesn't need to be changed, it still works. The I/O
>>> registers didn't really move, depending on your point of view: the clock
>>> was at addres -64 in the original system and with my changes it remains
>>> at address -64.
>>> On 17-06-14 17:48, Charles Perkins wrote:
>>>> In my changes I had left the bootloader alone but an 'hardware' change such
>>>> as expanding the address space and moving the IO registers naturally suggests
>>>> re-linking the bootloader to match. Will you be re-linking
>>>> the bootloader for your modified emulator?
>>>> In any case I look forward to downloading and working with the revised emulator.
>>> Oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems
>> Oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems
> Oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems
More information about the Oberon