Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!gamma!mibte!fmsrl7!eecae!nancy!mailrus!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!sas!walker
From: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Possible BLINK bug????
Message-ID: <444@sas.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 20:54:37 GMT
References: <8804060603.AA13042@jade.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC
Lines: 12

In article <8804060603.AA13042@jade.berkeley.edu> SLMYQ@USU.BITNET writes:
>When you use SMALLDATA and have a few data chunks that are supposed to go into
>chip memory and a few that don't need to, it just sticks them both together
>into one big chunk that must go into chip memory.  I really don't want to
>have 50K of stuff in chip memory which really doesn't need to be there.  And

This is not a bug.  It's a byproduct of SMALLDATA itself.  When you use the
SMALLDATA option, you are telling BLINK to make sure all your data is within
64k of a base pointer.  You can't keep the data within the limit if you split
it up between CHIP and FAST ram.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

(And you did get through to me anyway - I'm a Distiller.)