On Wed, 31 May 2006, art wrote: > @@ -1260,7 +1260,7 @@ > } > #endif > > - memcpy((void *)CAC_BASE, final_handler, 0x100); > + memcpy((void *)ebase, final_handler, 0x100); > } > > And it seem than no problem now (`cat /bin/busybox > box` work as much > as need!). > I think this is wright way, but not all - I'am not guru in memory > subsystem and can miss something! So wait for your advices! That change has been in the tree since Apr 16th -- there is a reason you should always try the latest revision before reporting a problem. Maciej
