|
|
| Author |
Message |
pjc30943
Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 220
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 1:52 AM Post subject: Error message: "Device failed firmware check..." |
|
|
After downloading the latest IDE for the 1280n dev board, I'm trying to reload older code onto a 1281e.
I get the error
"Device Failed Firmware Check, v2.4.0 or later is required", and the 1281e is identified correctly as 2.3.1.
I tried old backed-up code (that I think has no new commands) that compiled and loaded in the past few months, and get the same error message.
Most likely I'm doing something exceedingly silly... Any thoughts on why this message arises? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mikep
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Austin, TX
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 4:09 AM Post subject: |
|
|
That is an unusual problem. The latest ZVM is indeed 2.3.1 and the compiler should not be requiring a later version. I tried unsuccessfully to recreate this problem.
I would suggest going back and trying a simple hello world program. Here is a good sample to use: http://www.zbasic.net/forum/about956.html
The generated code is stored in the ZXB file. Can you append the first two lines of this file which indicate the device name and minimum firmware version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dkinzer Site Admin
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2499
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 14:45 PM Post subject: Re: Error message: "Device failed firmware check...&quo |
|
|
| pjc30943 wrote: | | "Device Failed Firmware Check, v2.4.0 or later is required" | Depending on what ZBasic features are used, the compiler determines the minimum VM version that is required. It is possible that this calculation is being done incorrectly. I'll have to do some research to figure out in what conditions it chooses v2.4.0 as the minimum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dkinzer Site Admin
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2499
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 17:14 PM Post subject: Re: Error message: "Device failed firmware check...& |
|
|
| dkinzer wrote: | | Depending on what ZBasic features are used, the compiler determines the minimum VM version that is required. | Are you using compiler directives or command line options to set the heap size or something similar? The code below compiled for a VM device will result in a minimum VM version of v2.4.0 will be required. Commenting out 'Option HeapSize' allows it to revert to an earlier VM version.
| Code: | Option HeapSize 200
Sub Main()
End Sub |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjc30943
Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 220
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 19:36 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe I'm setting the heap size, from which no issues arose before; I'll try commenting it out and see what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dkinzer Site Admin
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2499
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 19:45 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| pjc30943 wrote: | | I believe I'm setting the heap size, from which no issues arose before. | Originally, 'Option HeapSize' had no effect other than to change the threshold for the compiler to report when the aggregate size of statically allocated variables grew too large. It had no effect at all at run time.
In the new VM (v2.4.0 and later) the specified heap size is also used to set the heap limit, the threshold beyond which the heap will not grow. The reporting effect in the compiler remains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mikep
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Austin, TX
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 19:54 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| dkinzer wrote: | | In the new VM (v2.4.0 and later) the specified heap size is also used to set the heap limit, the threshold beyond which the heap will not grow. | Just to be clear, this new version of the VM has not yet been released and I believe is still under development. So for now this Option can be safely commented out as it has no effect on the runtime. At a later time, when version 2.4 or later of the firmware is available, then it will become more meaningful if specified in your application code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dkinzer Site Admin
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 2499
Location: Portland, OR
|
|
Posted: 10 May 2008, 23:58 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| mikep wrote: | | Just to be clear, this new version of the VM has not yet been released and I believe is still under development. | That is true. I should have explained it more clearly. The new VM version is currently being tested and will likely be ready for release in the first half of June. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjc30943
Joined: 02 Dec 2005
Posts: 220
|
|
Posted: 11 May 2008, 23:05 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| That fixed the issue; thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|