Hi, We are a group working on our senior project, and a little desperate for help. We received an warning saying that there is an overlaps between address(I don't remember the exact address): remote kernel..... We tried to run a simple C program on a PC104 board. We have tried to change the segment address, but it seemed that the warning was not affected at all. We have also tried different .cfg files. We have also tried to step through it. It run fine for a couple line, before the address jumped from 0x0000 to 0xF800, which means the code segment was overlapping with others. well, anyway, hopefully we can get some suggestion. Thanks -SP-
Overlaps : remote kernel......
Started by ●February 20, 2004
Reply by ●February 20, 20042004-02-20
Victor <mr526@yahoo.com> wrote: [...]> well, anyway, hopefully we can get some suggestion.... Huh? Without bothering to ever mention what hardware and what software platform you're talking about in the first place? You must be kidding. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
Reply by ●February 21, 20042004-02-21
on behalf of the team, I'm sorry for forgetting to mention the detail. we re running it using Paradigm C++, using asm86. I gotta check, but if I'm not mistaken, the board is PC104-88. Because of that Overlaps <address>.... warning, we also got some other warning regarding overlapping of some reserved area. as I mentioned in my first post, we tried to play around with the segment address, stack size, but no luck. I'm gonna try to get into the lab and get more detail coz the lab is closed for the weekend. sorry again, and still open for suggestion. Thanks -SP-
Reply by ●February 21, 20042004-02-21
Victor wrote:> on behalf of the team, I'm sorry for forgetting to mention the detail. > > we re running it using Paradigm C++, using asm86. > I gotta check, but if I'm not mistaken, the board is PC104-88. > > Because of that Overlaps <address>.... warning, we also got some other > warning regarding overlapping of some reserved area. > > as I mentioned in my first post, we tried to play around with the > segment address, stack size, but no luck. > > I'm gonna try to get into the lab and get more detail coz the lab is > closed for the weekend. > > sorry again, and still open for suggestion.I assume that you're building a non-segmented real mode 16-bit target. There is still quite limited amount of details,but here's a guess: It may be from Locate, telling that your address division does not allow so large pieces of data you're trying to squeeze in, or that the sections in the executable to be located are not separable due to common base addresses. It's a couple of years now as I last used Locate, but IIRC, the linking for proper location can be tricky. The problem comes from the Locate requirement that each section of the .exe file (depending on the source code, either segments or groups may be the sections) has to have a distinct relocation base address in the linked file. In some 8086 memory models, the grouping of segments will make this impossible, see your link maps. HTH Tauno Voipio tauno voipio @ iki fi