Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??

• To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Ben Sferrazza <bens@eden.rutgers.edu>
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:19:35 -0400
• References: <3441967A.67BE@eden.rutgers.edu> <344266fd.54258123@mail.anet-dfw.com>
• Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org

Michael Pearce wrote:
> 
> And don't forget that program sizes are smaller in Rigel than they are
> in Usgard.
> 
> -mike pearce
> 
> BTW, does it take 2 additional bytes for every "&" you stick in a
> Usgard program to put in the relocation table?

Sure.  Since Usgard uses some sort of fixup table for all relocation,
you must have at least two bytes for every fixup.  Ah, the beauty of
fixed address relocation. 

> < snip (it didn't need to be posted 4 times) >
> 

I didn't mean to.  My damn server was having problems.  I apologize.

• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Sam Davies <sdavies@unix.trilogy.net>
• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Jimmy Mårdell <mja@algonet.se>

• A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: Ben Sferrazza <bens@eden.rutgers.edu>
• Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
• From: mikep@anet-dfw.com (Michael Pearce)

• Prev: Re: A85: Re: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
• Next: Re: A85: Re: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread