| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
biermana
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 12
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:28 am Post subject: Late binding with PSPSDK |
 |
|
What is the recommended best practice for late binding (e.g. pspnet libraries) while using the PSPSDK? I could include a startup.s for each project, but based on the example Makefiles that come with the SDK, it would seem the PSPSDK encourages using a "shared" startup.s.
I ask this because I feel our community will evolve as we begin to consistently use the same methods/tools/patterns for developing homebrew.
In reading through the code of some examples that have been posted ( nem's helloword, the wifi example, the httpd example, etc.), we're all doing things a bit differently.
Any thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madc
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Location: Nanking,China
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I ported PspPet's code to SDK based. But the synchronization is still a issue. So I haven't call the linked functions from user mode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biermana
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| madc wrote: | | I ported PspPet's code to SDK based. But the synchronization is still a issue. So I haven't call the linked functions from user mode. |
Madc,
Is the work you've done refactoring PspPet's code to be PSPSDK-based posted somewhere for download/viewing? Or are you referring the the sample code which can be pulled from subversion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbrown
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 1536
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Late binding with PSPSDK |
|
|
| biermana wrote: | | What is the recommended best practice for late binding (e.g. pspnet libraries) while using the PSPSDK? I could include a startup.s for each project, but based on the example Makefiles that come with the SDK, it would seem the PSPSDK encourages using a "shared" startup.s. |
Create a seperate stub .s that's has all late imports. Call them libpspfoo_weak.a or something (the plan for kernel libraries was libpspfoo_kernel.a). Put them up somewhere, we'll add them to PSPSDK, and get you svn access.
| biermana wrote: | | I ask this because I feel our community will evolve as we begin to consistently use the same methods/tools/patterns for developing homebrew. |
That's the aim of PSPSDK - and to be frank, I think we've superceded nem's stuff and any derivatives quite nicely. If there's something that doesn't suit you in PSPSDK, let us know and submit a patch and we'll work with you to make it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biermana
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds good mrbrown. Thanks for your reply/guidance.
The PSPSDK is excellent, and defintely evolving quickly.
I'd personally like to pass along my thanks/appreciation to all the folks doing such a nice job on the PSPSDK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PspPet
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW: I still believe we are missing something obvious here (ie. the patching should be automatic, *in theory*). The first version of the patch code is rather slimy (hard coded addresses etc). Do what you wish with it, but hopefully it will go away if/when we find the right bits to set.
FWIW2: I have a slightly more elegant solution for system traps (ie. like STUB_FUNC but for calling "ForSystem" entries - using direct calls). Great for system hackery (all thanks to the Kernel memory access module flag) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
