RTX Tiny and Oregano Systems IP core

"I see nothing in the table you linked to that I did not address in my post."

LX51, for instance?

"I see nothing in the table you linked to that I did not address in my post."

LX51, for instance?

LX51, for instance?

addressed under 1)

Erik

"LX51, for instance?"

"addressed under 1)"

LX51 is not included in PK51.

now you lose me.

you post as "things in PK not in DK I have not addressed" LX51.

Now, you, when I state that the ..X programs is covered in my initial post, say "LX51 is not included in PK51"

Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement.

Erik

"Now, you, when I state that the ..X programs is covered in my initial post, say "LX51 is not included in PK51""

Yes, I mistyped. I meant "LX51 is not included in DK51".

"Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."

Look, this is reaching an astonishing level of absurdity. You listed *some* of the stuff that is included on PK but not DK, then asked what you were missing. I pointed you towards the table that shows what you get in each package so that you could see what you get in PK. In spite of this you still seem determined that your partial listing was complete. Why can you not just follow the advice you constantly dish out to others, namely "read the documentation".

Regarding your assertion that PK is not required for serious programming, let me assure you that I *require* PK for my serious programming.

1)You listed *some* of the stuff that is included on PK but not DK, then asked what you were missing.
And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing.

2)Regarding your assertion that PK is not required for serious programming, let me assure you that I *require* PK for my serious programming.
If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody.

3)As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK"

I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip.

Erik

"And I had a statement of "stuff needed for >64k limear address" which does include the LX51. Thus The LX51 was not missing."

So, you've dismissed a bunch of tools as "stuff needed for >64k linear address"? Did you know that LX51 has one or two other uses?

"If you "require" something that does not mean that it is "required" by everybody."

That's right. However, it also doesn't mean 'not required by anybody'.

"As I said: "Anyhow, what is and what is not in PK has no bearing on my statement that "PK is required for seroius programming" was a false statement."
Does in no way state "no serious programmer would want the PK""

That may not be your intent, but taken at face value it means 'PK is not required for serious programming' which is incorrect.

"I love the little bugger, but do feel that if you use a RTOS, code banking and who knows what with a '51, you have chosen the wrong chip."

I don't use any of those things however I do require PK. I would agree with your statement if you had said something like '*may* have chosen the wrong chip'. It is unreasonable to assert your *opinion* as fact. At least you have made it clear, in this case, that you are expressing an opinion.

One day you are going to have to realise that your personal set of rules are not necessarily always correct in all situations. Other people have different approaches to problems which suit them. This does not make them necessarily wrong.