Re: A82: Re: GWv2.0 bug/ASHv3.0 bug

To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A82: Re: GWv2.0 bug/ASHv3.0 bug
From: ADAMMAN106@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:27:22 EST
Reply-To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org


In a message dated 98-02-11 22:30:51 EST, you write:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:32:28 EST, you wrote:
>  
>  >
>  >In a message dated 98-02-11 18:16:55 EST, you write:
>  >
>  >> Speaking of too many shells, you may want to talk to Ben Sfarazza
>  >>  about Rigel (for the 85).  It uses fixed address relocation and
>  >>  updates the vat (i am pretty sure, anyways).
>  >>  
>  >>  -mike
>  >>   mgp4007@omega.uta.edu
>  >
>  >I think Usgard relocation is the best bet
>  >
>  >~Adamman
>  >
>  
>  the Usgard method wouldn't allow for backward compatability of all of
>  the ash games already out there... definitely a bad idea.
>  
>  -mike
>   mgp4007@omega.uta.edu

Personally, I don't care if everything has to be recompiled.  As long as the
relocation is the best there can be

~Adamman

Follow-Ups:

Re: A82: Re: GWv2.0 bug/ASHv3.0 bug

From: mgp4007@omega.uta.edu (Michael Pearce)