The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 20

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Re: Voyager Re-Engineering, was: Re: 15C LE - official statement?
Message #1 Posted by uhmgawa on 13 Aug 2011, 11:05 a.m.

Message #63 Posted by Walter B on 4 Aug 2011, 1:52 a.m., in response to message #62 by Paul Dale

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway each image is independent and persistent across firmware re-selects and of course power off events. The entire memory content, device state, and NUT virtual cpu context is maintained for each model version.

Oh well, it would have been nice :-(


AFAI understand, that's a set of logically completely independent applications on one HW. That's more than I've expected :-) So I don't understand the :-( above :-?


Sorry, for the late reply.

I believe what Pauli was really asking was whether the runtime context (user stack and register memory) was available between models such that exchange of data was possible.

That of course exists by default as memory is just one flat space with individual data context being structured identically. The task of shuffling data between models is really an external UI effort as it is unlikely we're going to be patching the legacy firmware to implement such a feature.

That said, depending on the mechanism for prospective data sharing, it would still be quite helpful to have annotated firmware source for all of the Voyager series particularly in the case such sharing involved tweaking individual RWM image context unbeknownst to the corresponding firmware.

I have bits and pieces of the 15c firmware documented from cases where I was chasing KEMU issues. A more comprehensive and scalable approach would be to modify a NUT assembler to accept hex binary in addition to instruction mnemonics so we could start with the binary image, reconstructing the source incrementally, "reassembling" and verifying the image as needed after annotation changes. This assumes some sort of open source like effort to address entire firmware images (and ideally a nod or minimally some indication from HP not to contest such an effort). Having this available is likely useful to HP as well but perhaps not something at the top of the to-do task list.

      
Re: Voyager Re-Engineering, was: Re: 15C LE - official statement?
Message #2 Posted by Paul Dale on 13 Aug 2011, 8:14 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by uhmgawa

Quote:
I believe what Pauli was really asking was whether the runtime context (user stack and register memory) was available between models such that exchange of data was possible.

This is exactly what I was wishing for. I'd be happy with just the stack and could make do with just X. For some of the Voyagers the location of X and the stack is known already.

- Pauli


[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall