Any Robominds Users out there?

Thu Mar 1 10:30:17 UTC 2001

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:12:43 -0600 Joel Sherrill
<joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com> writes:
> 
> Just curious. Since this is a cheap hobbyist board,
> it would be nice if RTEMS included a BSP for it.
> 
> I get the impression there is a working BSP out there.
> I was forwarded some email (that I have lost) that
> indicated paranoia ran on this board. 
> 
> -- 
> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
> joel at OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>    Support Available             (256) 722-9985

Was THIS the email you lost?

Oh, BTW, the MRM is the MiniRoboMind 68332 (8-bit data bus) made by
"Mark Castelluccio" <lists at robominds.com>
http://www.robominds.com/

wade

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Panetta <ahuitzot at mindspring.com>
To: 68332ABB at yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [68332ABB] rtems, anyone?
Message-ID: <3A9B11E0.B9F0F658 at mindspring.com>
References: <942ut4+ibhq at egroups.com>

Has anyone on the list got RTEMS running out of flash yet?
It think that this would be a powerful robot tasker
and I was wanting to play :)  Gary Livick's "robot ramblings"
email reminded me that someone was working on it...  It may
be pretty cool to see RTEMS do some interprocess
communications between 2 MRM's!

Mike

wizkid+egroups at ksu.edu wrote:

> Hi-
>
> I too, am working on "adapting" RTEMS to the MRM board. No real
> feat, as the efi332 group did most of the hard work for us! A few
> memory map changes here and there along with some code to dump back
> to CPU32BUG (as their board lacks this monitor program), and you've
> got a really cool POSIX-like libc with a real-time OS and all the
> trimmings.
>
> Still running out of ram, as I don't have a BDM pod and didn't want
> to risk erasing flash sector 0 while debugging code to write
> flash. :)
>
> I can't find the message, but would the other guy working on this
> send me some mail and perhaps we can coordinate our efforts?
>
> CPU32Bug>go 10000
> Effective address: 00010000
>
> *** PARANOIA TEST ***
> paranoia version 1.1 [cygnus]
> Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:
> TEST: 0+0 != 0, 1-1 != 0, 1 <= 0, or 1+1 != 2
> PASS: 0+0 != 0, 1-1 != 0, 1 <= 0, or 1+1 != 2
> TEST: 3 != 2+1, 4 != 3+1, 4+2*(-2) != 0, or 4-3-1 != 0
> PASS: 3 != 2+1, 4 != 3+1, 4+2*(-2) != 0, or 4-3-1 != 0
> TEST: -1+1 != 0, (-1)+abs(1) != 0, or -1+(-1)*(-1) != 0
> PASS: -1+1 != 0, (-1)+abs(1) != 0, or -1+(-1)*(-1) != 0
> TEST: 1/2 + (-1) + 1/2 != 0
> PASS: 1/2 + (-1) + 1/2 != 0
> TEST: 9 != 3*3, 27 != 9*3, 32 != 8*4, or 32-27-4-1 != 0
> PASS: 9 != 3*3, 27 != 9*3, 32 != 8*4, or 32-27-4-1 != 0
> TEST: 5 != 4+1, 240/3 != 80, 240/4 != 60, or 240/5 != 48
> PASS: 5 != 4+1, 240/3 != 80, 240/4 != 60, or 240/5 != 48
> -1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.
>
> Searching for Radix and Precision.
> Radix = 2.000000 .
> Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .
>
> Recalculating radix and precision
>  confirms closest relative separation U1 .
> Radix confirmed.
> TEST: Radix is too big: roundoff problems
> PASS: Radix is too big: roundoff problems
> TEST: Radix is not as good as 2 or 10
> PASS: Radix is not as good as 2 or 10
> TEST: (1-U1)-1/2 < 1/2 is FALSE, prog. fails?
> PASS: (1-U1)-1/2 < 1/2 is FALSE, prog. fails?
> TEST: Comparison is fuzzy,X=1 but X-1/2-1/2 != 0
> PASS: Comparison is fuzzy,X=1 but X-1/2-1/2 != 0
> The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .
> TEST: Precision worse than 5 decimal figures
> PASS: Precision worse than 5 decimal figures
> TEST: Subtraction is not normalized X=Y,X+Z != Y+Z!
> PASS: Subtraction is not normalized X=Y,X+Z != Y+Z!
> Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.
> Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.
> TEST: * gets too many final digits wrong.
>
> PASS: * gets too many final digits wrong.
>
> TEST: Division lacks a Guard Digit, so error can exceed 1 ulp
> or  1/3  and  3/9  and  9/27 may disagree
> PASS: Division lacks a Guard Digit, so error can exceed 1 ulp
> or  1/3  and  3/9  and  9/27 may disagree
> TEST: Computed value of 1/1.000..1 >= 1
> PASS: Computed value of 1/1.000..1 >= 1
> TEST: * and/or / gets too many last digits wrong
> PASS: * and/or / gets too many last digits wrong
>      *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.
> Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.
> TEST: X * (1/X) differs from 1
> PASS: X * (1/X) differs from 1
> Multiplication appears to round correctly.
> / is neither chopped nor correctly rounded.
> TEST: Radix * ( 1 / Radix ) differs from 1
> PASS: Radix * ( 1 / Radix ) differs from 1
> TEST: Incomplete carry-propagation in Addition
> PASS: Incomplete carry-propagation in Addition
> Addition/Subtraction appears to round correctly.
> Sticky bit used incorrectly or not at all.
> TEST: lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly round or chop
> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below
> ERROR: Severity: FLAW:  lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to
> correctly round or chop
> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below.
> PASS: lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly round or chop
> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below
>
> Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.
>      No failures found in 20 integer pairs.
>
> Running test of square root(x).
> TEST: Square root of 0.0, -0.0 or 1.0 wrong
> PASS: Square root of 0.0, -0.0 or 1.0 wrong
> Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.
> Test for sqrt monotonicity.
> sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.
> Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.
> Square root appears to be correctly rounded.
> Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.
> ... no discrepancies found.
>
> Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.
> Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 4.94066e-324 .
> Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.
> What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .
> This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.
> Underflow is gradual; it incurs Absolute Error =
> (roundoff in UfThold) < E0.
> The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720188e-308,  below which
> calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.
> Since underflow occurs below the threshold
> UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)
> only underflow should afflict the expression
>         (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-2.04400000000000000e+03);
> actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
> This computed value is O.K.
>
> Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065218e+00 as
> X -> 1.
> Accuracy seems adequate.
> Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.
>  ... no discrepancies found.
>
> Searching for Overflow threshold:
> This may generate an error.
> Can `Z = -Y' overflow?
> Trying it on Y = -Inf .
> Seems O.K.
> Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
> Overflow saturates at V0 = Inf .
> No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308
>                            nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
> Any overflow signal separating this * from the one
> above is a DEFECT.
>
> What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?
>     Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...  Inf .
>
>     Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...  NaN .
>
> The number of  FLAWs  discovered =           1.
>
> The arithmetic diagnosed seems Satisfactory though flawed.
> END OF TEST.
> *** END OF PARANOIA TEST ***
> CPU32Bug>
>
> --- Zach
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 68332ABB-unsubscribe at egroups.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.