Re: A89: This is important

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: This is important


I was wondering how the actual dissassembly worked.....I've looked in a lot
of places but can't find any info on it.  Anyway, thanks for any help.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: A89: This is important


>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:13:03 -0600, Miles Raymond wrote:
> >
> > Do you have further documentation of 1.xx?  I (and many others, I'm
sure)
> > would love to see this if you are not planning on studying it any
further.
> > As a programmer, I will not ask for your 2.xx observations as I know
that
> > you will most likely continue them and perfect them.  I only ask for
your
> > 1.xx findings IF and only IF you are not planning on researching on it
any
> > more.
>
> I'm almost certain that I will not study 1.00 any further. I find it
> completely uninteresting and I can only wish everybody else did too. It
was
> made in a haste and it lacks decent support for user assembly language
> programs!
>
> I've seen an extensive collection of information about 1.0x functions
> compiled by someone called Zeljko Juric <zjuric@utic.net.ba>. I think it
was
> in the TI-GCC docs (a friend of mine (hi Xav!) showed it to me, otherwise
I
> would never have seen it). It's in C, and very comprehensible.
>
> I usually don't write nice documents about the things I discover, I only
> remember the general idea and *where* and *how* to find the exact details
> *when I need them*. Most of my work on 1.00 resides in a single ~10Mb
> (uncompressed) database of disassembled code, cross references, labels,
> structs, enums and my comments/guesses. It's probably useless to anyone
but
> me who remembers the logic and reason behind all the weird comments
> everywhere...
>
> But go for the TI-GCC docs if you haven't done so already! Most of the
> information therein applies to 2.xx as well, so there's no waste of time
in
> having a look at it!
>
> /Johan
>
>
References: