Re: Re: LZ: jump tables vs. lookup tables (WAS: Re: LZ: my 2 frozen

To: <list-zshell@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: Re: LZ: jump tables vs. lookup tables (WAS: Re: LZ: my 2 frozen
From: ess.andreas@computerhaus.at (Ess Andreas)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 11:07:53 +0200
Reply-To: list-zshell@lists.ticalc.org

For ZShell, you need 2 lookup tables(ROM 3.0A, ROM 9.0):
  28 * 2 = 56 bytes for the look-up table.
+ ? bytes for the 'parser'

Usgard:
  42 bytes for the ZShell jump table
+ a little parser which just does a MUL_HL and some funky stuff...

If the way we do it isn't smaller, it isn't very much bigger. I for myself still believe that it's smaller. 
 Andreas
----------------
E-Mail:  ess.andreas@computerhaus.at
Webpage: http://andi.ganymed.org

> The thing is, in order to be compatible with ZShell, Usgard _STILL_ 
> has to have the lookup table, PLUS the routine to find the addresses in 
> that table, so that routine is in there anyways!  This _REALLY_ wastes 
> space!

Prev: RE: LZ: a new memory exspander...
Next: LZ: Timer interrupt when LCD is off?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread