> As a side note: replacing the chip took longer than expected. I accidentally ordered a GD32F350R8T6, instead of the GD32F350RBT6 that was in the device originally. These two types differ in their flash sizes: 64 kB vs 128 kB. Don’t ask me why GigaDevice thought this naming scheme and this font was a good idea
An 8 looking almost exactly like a B. What a terrible idea.
Blame STM. Those clones copy (..among other things) the naming convention from STMicroelectronics parts like stm32f103c8t6/stm32f103cBt6. Guess what's the only difference between those.
Oh, and .. since STM likes binning/product segmentation, there's a good chance that if you ignore the reported flash size and still try to flash the full 128K, it works on those models..
Assuming the other commenter is correct and the mcu is a clone of an ST product, then it's possible that the protection are fuses that destroy the pathways to the memory. They're one-time writable and cannot be undone. At my work that is how we protect our firmware with a similar ST product.
I'm not sure how it works in-silicon. Would be interesting to know how... but it's sunday afternoon
A major milestone in the fight against wrongful medical determinations of SBS/AHT. Proud to have made a tiny contribution to this case (disclosure: signed an amicus curiae). More context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
What prevents LLM designers from cheating and including a human handcrafted SVG into the model for this specific request (allowing for variations between calls)?
Nothing, but looking at the current results either no one tried yet or it didn't work very well. And the pelican benchmark has been around for a while so the opportunity was there.
reply