Re: A83: Re: subprogs

To: John Kugelman <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A83: Re: subprogs
From: Linus Akesson <lairfight@softhome.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:28:24 +0100
Delivered-To: assembly-83-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <35B8B117.413216E6@mnsinc.com>
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org


Yeah, but then it's impossible to squish the program. _insertmem would be a
better choice.

Linus

On 24-Jul-98, John Kugelman wrote:

>Harper Maddox wrote:
>> 
>> Technically you could have over 27k of variables... you can make the whole
>> program an array of random numbers, and these numbers which are located
>> within your program are essentially variables (although they seemingly have
>> no value without a label)
>> 
>> ie.   .db 0,2,5,5,4,6,6,4  ; could go on forever
>> you could also use the textmem, textshadow, cmdshadow also giving you even
>> more memory than your free ram.

>Ugh, an easier way to do this is to use the facilities provided by TI. 
>Change the number after the first End in your program to the amount of
>memory you need.  It will reside right after your program, so you can
>reference it through a label at the end of your program.

>This is better because it won't take up memory when the program isn't
>running but will be generous enough to report "Out of memory" if there's
>not enough at runtime.

>This is a good solution to find memory if you need to use the "useless"
>memory pools for their actual uses.

>-- 
>John Kugelman.  kugelman@mnsinc.com

>I believe we can change anything.
>I believe in my dream.
>    - Joe Satriani

References:

Re: A83: Re: subprogs

From: John Kugelman <kugelman@mnsinc.com>