In article <[email protected]>, Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > Tom Walker wrote: > > Just to add to the endless confusion, mine gives a sum of > > 7d5eae5f1e9f0b06680f559edd14508d732e8d87. > To sum up, > 42c3dd0ae43149849b674ea025cb2206512a5b4a My "good" 3.70. > 7d5eae5f1e9f0b06680f559edd14508d732e8d87 My "bad" 3.70. > 7d5eae5f1e9f0b06680f559edd14508d732e8d87 Tom's 3.70. > a1218ab6bd2f965d317522be68112d9ae3742fa0 David's first 3.70. > e6b0e9d7797f5df6edd95a85978fa1a92fc7fef6 David's wife's 3.70. > e7cb05c9925dd0d7d9d5ff6f74244066c5c87e34 Musus Umbra's 3.70. > Tom's matches one I already had, labelled "bad". Can't recall why, > would have to investigate. The only one Google's heard of is my > "good" one, so that doesn't help. [Snip figues] > Anyone recall 3.70 bug fixes to do with Pinboard? Is it in RISC OS > Open's sources? Perhaps the change history gives a clue. > There's no way on 3.70 hardware that the ROM can be masked with > patched RAM is there? So soft-loaded stuff is skewing what's being > saved? I'm sure there isn't, and it's only on the Iyonix that copy > stuff from flash into RAM, and patches it, where the original flash > is then no longer accessible. Brilliant bit of deductive reasoning! I did a power on with shift & * held down and the sha1sum of the rom I've got from that is the same as your "mygood" rom. -- David - david atcost ukpoets fullstop net _______________________________________________ Rpcemu mailing list [email protected] http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
