[A83] Re: im 2
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: im 2
> I know, but I brought up the issue again, because my routine really needs
to be as fast
> as possible. Every tstate counts. So I thought, by splitting it up into
several routines, which
> are randomly called, each routine could be faster than when I had to put
them together
> and built in a counter.
What are you doing that is so time critical? Your logic doesn't make any
sense. Having less control over your program doesn't make it faster.
> As far as I know now, the lower bit seems to be more 1 than 0. Also, when
I use a
> _getcsc/halt loop in the main program, the lowest bit seems to be always
1, resulting in
> aligned addresses. Don't ask me why that is.
How are you reading the value? I don't have any proof, but reading the
register might always return the same value, or a different one than the
calc uses when an interrupt occurs. The only way to really test it is to
put in different interrupt routines at different addresses, and see what
happens. Or put garbage in half the bytes, and see if it crashes.
> So why didn't TI put in a decent interrupting device for us poor
programmers?
Because the calc wasn't designed for us programmers :) They always use IM 1
(which is only usable on the 86). Having an IM 2 mode that works is just
luck.
References: