On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 16:16, Frank Wille <frank%phoenix.owl.de@localhost> wrote: > > 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. That would be the ideal "default" case - though would that most likely involve loading the kernel first into the largest segment, and then copying it to the desired segment? If we can do it then I'd definitely be inclined to just try that. > > 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). That sounds suspiciously like teamwork :) > 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. I would suggest this makes sense to be the default behaviour, so would not need an explicit option. We would need a way to override it with -p, and again to force picking the largest (current default). Does it output a set of options with -h at the moment? David