[A83] Re: assembly-83 Digest V3 #16
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: assembly-83 Digest V3 #16
hi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ecartis" <ecartis@lists.ticalc.org>
To: "assembly-83 digest users" <ecartis@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:25 PM
Subject: assembly-83 Digest V3 #16
> assembly-83 Digest Tue, 28 Jan 2003 Volume: 03 Issue: 016
>
> In This Issue:
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: os 1.13
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:00:07 -0500 (EST)
> From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> mine has 1.13. how would i get it out of the .clc file?
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Corey <corey@acz.org>
> Sent: 01/27/03 08:35 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
> >
> > the flash debugger has 1.14 i believe.
>
> corey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Fineman" <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> To: ", Asm 83" <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:29 PM
> Subject: [A83] os 1.13
>
>
> > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
> work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:00:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> mine has 1.13. how would i get it out of the .clc file?
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Corey <corey@acz.org>
> Sent: 01/27/03 08:35 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
> >
> > the flash debugger has 1.14 i believe.
>
> corey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Fineman" <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> To: ", Asm 83" <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:29 PM
> Subject: [A83] os 1.13
>
>
> > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
> work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:23:28 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> From: <corey@acz.org>
>
>
> Although vti 3.0 loads the .clc files, I don't know the exact
> differences in the files right now.:-/
>
> corey
>
> > mine has 1.13. how would i get it out of the .clc file?
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Corey <corey@acz.org>
> > Sent: 01/27/03 08:35 PM
> > To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> >>
> >> the flash debugger has 1.14 i believe.
> >
> > corey
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aaron Fineman" <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> > To: ", Asm 83" <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:29 PM
> > Subject: [A83] os 1.13
> >
> >
> >> does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc +
> symbolic
> >> don't
> > work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:55:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: nickptar@mindspring.com
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> Unfortunately, you can't downgrade your OS on the actual calculator. You
> can upgrade or reinstall, but it refuses to let you go to a lower version.
> Otherwise, I'd be using 1.14 (damn new tokens!).
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:59:12 +0100
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
>
> It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> Meet Singles
> http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:39:02 +0100 (CET)
> From: Peter-Martijn Kuipers <hbyte@hbyte.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> I think the following trick should work in theory:
>
> 1) load 1.15 to your calc (you might want to try a hacked (few bytes
> altered) one)
> 2) in the middle of the process, pull out the
> link-cable/batteries or turn the calc off
> 3) your calc should now complain about not having a good OS on it..
> 4) load 1.14 to it
>
> --Peter-Martijn
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 nickptar@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, you can't downgrade your OS on the actual calculator. You
> > can upgrade or reinstall, but it refuses to let you go to a lower
version.
> > Otherwise, I'd be using 1.14 (damn new tokens!).
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:30:02 -0500
> From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> v1.8? of symbolic? nah... you can get by with os 1.15 but no version of
> symbolic will work perfectly on os 1.15. nothing can be done about it...
> about uploading an os... i can't believe you can't downgrade... but if not
> try reinstalling os1.15, then killing the download part way through and
try
> sending os1.14 after that
>
> brandon sterner
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> > > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
> work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >
> > It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> > --
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> > Meet Singles
> > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:47:25 +0100
> From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:56:42 -0800, Aaron St.John wrote:
>
> > > Another ambitious idea: shared libraries. This would require its
> > > own shell of course.
> >
> > I considered teh idea of using a new shell, but I eventually decided
> > it wasn't needed. There no reason why any program can't find the
> > library variable and either copy it so RAM or else simply jump right
> > into the location of the varaible (so long as the CRT only refers to
> > itself with relative jumps).
>
> Libraries are a hassle. Although a nice concept, it's annoying to have
> to go find another lib to get some program working.
> I once did it and was told to get rid of them.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:13:43 -0500
> From: Gavin Olson <gtolson@comcast.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
>
> At 10:47 PM 1/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:56:42 -0800, Aaron St.John wrote:
> >
> > > > Another ambitious idea: shared libraries. This would require its
> > > > own shell of course.
> > >
> > > I considered teh idea of using a new shell, but I eventually decided
> > > it wasn't needed. There no reason why any program can't find the
> > > library variable and either copy it so RAM or else simply jump right
> > > into the location of the varaible (so long as the CRT only refers to
> > > itself with relative jumps).
> >
> >Libraries are a hassle. Although a nice concept, it's annoying to have
> >to go find another lib to get some program working.
> >I once did it and was told to get rid of them.
>
>
> Yeah. Libs are a pain. There is a generation of programs for the TI-89
> that require a combination of libraries, with differing levels of support
> for OS and hardware (damn the 89's hardware rev!) revisions. The newer
> generation of programs requiring no libs are much easier to deal with. Of
> course, the 89 has way more room to waste on redundant code, too. Perhaps
> you could do this: When a program runs, it checks for other programs
using
> the libs. If it finds one, it points itself to the program with the libs
> and deletes its own set of the libs. This leads to problems if you delete
> the first program to be run on the calc, but allows you to include libs in
> every program but only have one copy on-calc.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Aaron St.John" <aaronstj@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:18:09 -0800
>
>
> >Libraries are a hassle. Although a nice concept, it's annoying to have to
> >go find another lib to get some program working. I once did it and was
told
> >to get rid of them.
>
> I think the benifits of having a shared CRT outweighs the hassle. If C
> programs become common, a lot of space could be wasted by duplicate code.
> For example, printf takes up about 500 bytes of code. If every program
> included acopy of printf, that's a lot of wasted space, we we don't have
> much room for on the TI-83.
>
> One thing in our favor here is that the CRT's interface is standardized,
so
> even if there was more than one version of the CRT, you could still expect
a
> program to function correctly.
>
> One idea is to create a dynamically linked library and a statically linked
> library, and see which one wins out in the end, but that would be a lot of
> work.
>
> Stupid like a fox!
> Look ma, I'm an artist: http://aaronstj.deviantart.com
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:25:06 -0500 (EST)
> From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> i used TI-Conect to downgrade to 1.12 once and it worked fine, just have
to use TI-Graphlink to upgrade.
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> Sent: 01/28/03 04:30 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
> >
> > v1.8? of symbolic? nah... you can get by with os 1.15 but no version
of
> symbolic will work perfectly on os 1.15. nothing can be done about it...
> about uploading an os... i can't believe you can't downgrade... but if not
> try reinstalling os1.15, then killing the download part way through and
> try
> sending os1.14 after that
>
> brandon sterner
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> > > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
> work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >
> > It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> > --
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> > Meet Singles
> > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:47:31 -0500 (EST)
> From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> so, no one has 1.13? even on their calc?
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> Sent: 01/28/03 03:25 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
> >
> > i used TI-Conect to downgrade to 1.12 once and it worked fine, just have
to
> use TI-Graphlink to upgrade.
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> Sent: 01/28/03 04:30 PM
> To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
> >
> > v1.8? of symbolic? nah... you can get by with os 1.15 but no version
> of
> symbolic will work perfectly on os 1.15. nothing can be done about it...
> about uploading an os... i can't believe you can't downgrade... but if not
> try reinstalling os1.15, then killing the download part way through and
> try
> sending os1.14 after that
>
> brandon sterner
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> > > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic don't
> work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >
> > It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> > --
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> > Meet Singles
> > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:48:03 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> From: <corey@acz.org>
>
>
> I think i have it at home in a vti directory somewhere.
>
> corey
> >so, no one has 1.13? even on their calc?
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> > Sent: 01/28/03 03:25 PM
> > To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> >>
> >> i used TI-Conect to downgrade to 1.12 once and it worked fine,
> just
> >> have to
> > use TI-Graphlink to upgrade.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> > Sent: 01/28/03 04:30 PM
> > To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> >>
> >> v1.8? of symbolic? nah... you can get by with os 1.15 but no
> version
> > of
> >symbolic will work perfectly on os 1.15. nothing can be done
> about
> >it... about uploading an os... i can't believe you can't downgrade...
> >but if not try reinstalling os1.15, then killing the download part
> way
> >through and try
> >sending os1.14 after that
> >
> > brandon sterner
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> > To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> >
> >> > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc +
> symbolic
> >> > don't
> > work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> >>
> >> It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> >> --
> >> __________________________________________________________
> >> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> >> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >>
> >> Meet Singles
> >> http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Corey" <corey@acz.org>
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:51:08 -0600
>
>
> I have
> 83P: 1.12 1.15
>
> .rom files not .clc
>
> corey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Fineman" <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:47 PM
> Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
>
>
> > so, no one has 1.13? even on their calc?
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Aaron Fineman <amfineman@earthlink.net>
> > Sent: 01/28/03 03:25 PM
> > To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> > >
> > > i used TI-Conect to downgrade to 1.12 once and it worked fine, just
have
> to
> > use TI-Graphlink to upgrade.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>
> > Sent: 01/28/03 04:30 PM
> > To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> > >
> > > v1.8? of symbolic? nah... you can get by with os 1.15 but no version
> > of
> > symbolic will work perfectly on os 1.15. nothing can be done about
it...
> > about uploading an os... i can't believe you can't downgrade... but if
not
> > try reinstalling os1.15, then killing the download part way through and
> > try
> > sending os1.14 after that
> >
> > brandon sterner
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adriaan Coosemans" <adriaanc@mail.com>
> > To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:59 PM
> > Subject: [A83] Re: os 1.13
> >
> >
> > > > does anyone have a copy of os 1.13 or 1.14? omnicalc + symbolic
don't
> > work on 1.15. i would perfer 1.13, but 1.14 will work.
> > >
> > > It works fine with me, but you must have v1.8 or later.
> > > --
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > >
> > > Meet Singles
> > > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Patai Gergely" <patai_gergely@fastmail.fm>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:38:37 +0100
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
>
> > One thing in our favor here is that the CRT's interface is standardized,
so
> > even if there was more than one version of the CRT, you could still
expect a
> > program to function correctly.
>
> "Libraries" do already exist. They are called "ROM routines". They do
> fulfil these requirements...
>
> --
> http://fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Aaron St.John" <aaronstj@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:01:36 -0800
>
>
> >"Libraries" do already exist. They are called "ROM routines". They do
> fulfil these requirements...
>
> They do not fulfill the requirement of "implements the standard CRT,"
which
> is the most important requirement in this case. Although many routines
can
> delegate to ROM function (putchar(), for example), many can't. For
> instance, TIOS certainly doesn't implement printf(). Therefore that could
> needs to be duplicated, either in the individual programs or some sort of
> additional shared library.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stupid like a fox!
> Look ma, I'm an artist: http://aaronstj.deviantart.com
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Corey" <corey@acz.org>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:12:36 -0600
>
>
> Are floats going to be attempted at all?
>
> corey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron St.John" <aaronstj@hotmail.com>
> To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:01 AM
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
>
> > >"Libraries" do already exist. They are called "ROM routines". They do
> > fulfil these requirements...
> >
> > They do not fulfill the requirement of "implements the standard CRT,"
> which
> > is the most important requirement in this case. Although many routines
> can
> > delegate to ROM function (putchar(), for example), many can't. For
> > instance, TIOS certainly doesn't implement printf(). Therefore that
could
> > needs to be duplicated, either in the individual programs or some sort
of
> > additional shared library.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stupid like a fox!
> > Look ma, I'm an artist: http://aaronstj.deviantart.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:43:41 +0100
> From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org>
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:13:43 -0500, Gavin Olson wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Libs are a pain. There is a generation of programs for the
> > TI-89 that require a combination of libraries, with differing levels
> > of support for OS and hardware (damn the 89's hardware rev!)
> > revisions. The newer generation of programs requiring no libs are
> > much easier to deal with. Of course, the 89 has way more room to
> > waste on redundant code, too. Perhaps you could do this: When a
> > program runs, it checks for other programs using the libs. If it
> > finds one, it points itself to the program with the libs and deletes
> > its own set of the libs. This leads to problems if you delete the
> > first program to be run on the calc, but allows you to include libs in
> > every program but only have one copy on-calc.
>
> It would be easier to put libc in an app. Plenty of space there. 83+
> only then though.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:25:39 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: [A83] Re: CRT (was SDCC port)
> From: <corey@acz.org>
>
>
> They 'key' and I stress 'key' problem with that is compatibility.
>
> Either you keep a bad version of a library call and allow
> compatibility or you change it and make everyone change their
> programs.
>
> Since this isn't a shell, there's no set grouping for each library
> really.
>
> This 'could' be avoided but would be a big headache if using
> libraries in that manner.
>
> corey
>
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:13:43 -0500, Gavin Olson wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah. Libs are a pain. There is a generation of programs for
> the
> >> TI-89 that require a combination of libraries, with differing
> levels
> >> of support for OS and hardware (damn the 89's hardware rev!)
> >> revisions. The newer generation of programs requiring no libs
> are
> >> much easier to deal with. Of course, the 89 has way more
> room to
> >> waste on redundant code, too. Perhaps you could do this:
> When a
> >> program runs, it checks for other programs using the libs. If it
> >> finds one, it points itself to the program with the libs and
> deletes
> >> its own set of the libs. This leads to problems if you delete the
> >> first program to be run on the calc, but allows you to include
> libs in
> >> every program but only have one copy on-calc.
> >
> > It would be easier to put libc in an app. Plenty of space there.
> 83+
> > only then though.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of assembly-83 Digest V3 #16
> ********************************
>