Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

• To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Sam Davies <sdavies@unix.trilogy.net>
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:38:01 -0400
• References: <3441967A.67BE@eden.rutgers.edu> <344266fd.54258123@mail.anet-dfw.com> <34427447.648A@eden.rutgers.edu>
• Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org

Ben Sferrazza wrote:

> Michael Pearce wrote:
> >
> > And don't forget that program sizes are smaller in Rigel than they are
> > in Usgard.
> >
> > -mike pearce
> >
> > BTW, does it take 2 additional bytes for every "&" you stick in a
> > Usgard program to put in the relocation table?
>
> Sure.  Since Usgard uses some sort of fixup table for all relocation,
> you must have at least two bytes for every fixup.  Ah, the beauty of
> fixed address relocation.

Actually, no!  It takes in most cases only *1* byte to store the address!
How can we do this, you ask?  We store addresses relatively -- that is we
store the offset from the last relocation address.  So if there are two &'s
within 256 bytes, it will only take one byte :)
    Sam

--
Sam Davies <sdavies@mail.trilogy.net>

• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Terry Peng <tpeng@geocities.com>

• A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Ben Sferrazza <bens@eden.rutgers.edu>
• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: mikep@anet-dfw.com (Michael Pearce)
• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Ben Sferrazza <bens@eden.rutgers.edu>

• Prev: Re: A85: Re: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
• Next: Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread