Any Robominds Users out there?
Joel Sherrill
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Thu Mar 1 13:11:49 UTC 2001
Wade A Smith wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes. Now it is archived so is there forever. :)
For those interested there are two robominds mailing lists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/68332abb
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/robominds
RoboMinds makes a 68332 board and a version of the Motorola
BDM interface. They seem very inexpensive and from the
descriptions nice hobbyist boards. I have no personal
experience with them but this seems like a natural
board for RTEMS to official include a BSP for. Cheap,
easy to obtain, etc.
> 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.
--
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
More information about the users
mailing list