[Virtualacorn-list] VRPS falling over, big time.

[Kev Smith]

In message <gemini.kk9zvs002ebqh02pg at wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
          Jeremy Nicoll - virtualacorn 
<jn.ml.vac.83 at wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> Kev Smith <kev.smudge at ntlworld.com> wrote:


[snip]

> makes me guess that the 'base' address for the second bank probably needs to
> be the right value - I'm assuming that it's contiguous with the first bank.
> In your experiments did you adjust the second 'base' value each time?

> The first figure, 0x10000000 is the hexadecimal representation of 256 M (ie
> 256 * 1024 * 1024).  If you add 64M to that you get 320M (ie 320 * 1024 *
> 1024) which in hex is 0x14000000 which suggests the two values are related
> this way.  I wonder if you may have told VRPC to use either overlapping
> ranges of memory or two areas with a gap between.

It did cross my mind about those values needing to be changed, but the 
values you have are the same as the default values VRPC uses with 16MB 
in each bank, so maybe they're just the 'normal' address ranges of the 
two simulated SIMM sockets. And the gap of 64MB between them ties in 
with the maximum RAM that VRPC can have being 128MB (64 + 64).


-- 
Kev Smith

Forget about World Peace.....Visualize Using Your Turn Signal!