Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:18:50 -0400, you wrote:
>Jimmy Mårdell wrote:
>> As Sam & Andi has mentioned, it's one byte most of the time. The format
>> is very simple: if the next byte in the relocation table is >0, it's
>> the relative address from the previous relocation address. If it's 0,
>> the next word in the table is the relative address from the previous
>> relocation address.
>>
>> Personally, I've never liked fixed address relocation because it
>> seems very unstable, especially if you're going to support libraries,
>> TSR, deleting/resizing vars etc. Deleting a variable between
>> the fixed program and libraries in use (+ TSR programs running) must
>> require quite a lot of code since you have to rerelocate the library
>> and the TSR program.
>
>Maybe that's been the case in your attempts with Usgard. However, Rigel
>1.0, which supports Fixed Address Relocation, is very stable. One can
>have TSRs, libraries, and use the Var functions (I've tested). And as
>for it taking a lot of code. Well, somehow I managed to get Rigel in a
>size 800 bytes less than Usgard. So, do you have a different opinion on
>fixed address relocation?
>
I think that you are over estimating the size of Usgard. With a shell
similar to the one for rigel, it is about 1800 bytes. Rigel, without
all of the features you talked about (i.e. v0.9) is 1200 bytes.
-mike pearce
Follow-Ups:
References: