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

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: mgp4007@omega.uta.edu (Michael Pearce)
• Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:47:22 GMT
• In-Reply-To: <694f4e5e.34e3774c@aol.com>
• References: <694f4e5e.34e3774c@aol.com>
• Reply-To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org

>>  
>>  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
>

there is nothing specific that makes usgard's method any better, as
long as the VAT is updated in fixed address relocation.  The usgard
method also makes programs larger, maybe 50-150 bytes/game.

-mike
 mgp4007@omega.uta.edu

• A82: HP 'assembly' info wanted
• From: ilya winham <ilyamojo@geocities.com>

• Re: A82: Re: GWv2.0 bug/ASHv3.0 bug
• From: ADAMMAN106@aol.com

• Prev: Re: A82: SV: Thoughts on Missle Camando...
• Next: A82: HP 'assembly' info wanted
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread