David Brownlee wrote: On 25.03.23 18:38:07 you wrote: > [...] Having a 'minimum amount of RAM' value, > adjustable by a param, combined with defaulting to -p should make the > default work in ~every case, and be optimal in almost all We could also do an automatic check if the selected kernel fits into the chosen memory segment, but an option never hurts. > Continuing my self appointed role as "loud voice that encourages > others to do the actual work" - is anyone interested? :) When nobody else is interested I would give it a try. But I prefer to coordinate my effort with Roc Vallès, as he has to make sure it also compiles with the Amiga-port of gcc6 (which I don't have installed). Should we remove the -p option, or leave it for compatibility? And the new option could be -M. Or give the existing -m a new meaning, which seems to be useless IMHO. -- Frank Wille