Re: A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)

Re: A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)

• To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)
• From: Olle Hedman <oh@hem.passagen.se>
• Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:58:34 +0200
• Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• Delivered-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• References: <d2dbc030.24cde662@aol.com> <14236.61872.303424.18530@tade.bendor.com.au> <004601bed7da$c6a50b20$580c7ed1@eddie> <14237.18773.91545.499955@tade.bendor.com.au> <000201bed84a$7bf84400$5e0c7ed1@eddie> <14238.17180.207320.106365@tade.bendor.com.au>
• Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

Zoltan Kocsi wrote:
> I guess the available RAM might be a reasonable limit. If you run
> from the FLASH, then the size of that. The 68000 has an address limit
> of 16MB, certainly not presenting any constraint in the case of the
> TI89.

the maximum length should be 64K since you have only a word telling the size of
the programfile. You should be able to have larger programs by splitting them up
un different files though..  and then I think its safe to assume that available
ram/flash is the limit..

//Olle

• Re: A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)
• From: "Miles Raymond" <m_rayman@bigfoot.com>

• A89: supervisor vs usermode...
• From: S43R80@aol.com
• A89: supervisor vs usermode...
• From: Zoltan Kocsi <zoltan@bendor.com.au>
• A89: Re: supervisor vs usermode...
• From: "Miles Raymond" <m_rayman@bigfoot.com>
• A89: Re: supervisor vs usermode...
• From: Zoltan Kocsi <zoltan@bendor.com.au>
• A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)
• From: "Miles Raymond" <m_rayman@bigfoot.com>
• A89: TI-89 info was(Re: supervisor vs usermode...)
• From: Zoltan Kocsi <zoltan@bendor.com.au>

• Prev: Re: A89: Re: supervisor vs usermode...
• Next: A89: Re: Archive memory
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread