>> Besides this, and perhaps a little bit of
>> difference in .hex file generation (changing origins and the like), I
>> don't really see the need to put the bootloader at the top of memory.
>
> I dislike "difference in the .hex", so I like a bootloeader to be
> transparent (invisible to the user, up to the limit of what is
> achieveable). A top-memory BL can do this quite good, a bottom-memory BL
> can't.
>


Why can't a bottom-memory (low address, right?) bootloader avoid the
"difference in hex" problem? I've been using bootloader starting at
address 0. When compiling a new version, I compile with the bootloader and
with the appropriate linker script. I send out this hex file. The write
protect of the bootloader area prevents this area from being overwritten,
even though it is present in the hex file. I use the same hex file for
field updates (bootload) and production programming of raw chips.

Harold
(fan of bootloaders starting at address 0)

-- 
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist