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

[Mik Towse]

In article <c31c256250.Kev at ntlworld.com> Kev Smith  wrote:
> In message <gemini.kk9zvs002ebqh02pg at wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
>           Jeremy Nicoll - virtualacorn 
> <jn.ml.vac.83 at wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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).
Is there any reason for having two banks? My model.cfg only has this one
entry:

[Ram]
base = 0x10000000
size = 128Mb

I've checked all 3 models in my version of VRPC_SA & they all have just this
one setting for [Ram].

-- 
Mik Towse * mik.towse at xemik.com * http://www.xemik.co.uk/
My writers' site can be found at: http://www.lexis.org.uk

xemik.net - cost effective web hosting : http://xemik.net

Success is a lousy teacher; it seduces smart
people into thinking they can't lose. Bill Gates