Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:44:57 -0700, you wrote:
>Ben Sferrazza wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>We've actually never tried to make fixed address relocation in Usgard.
>Some reason Usgard is bigger is that there are more rom calls + other
>functions in the core used by many programs. Exchangable shell is
>something else. Does Rigel support the possibility to execute a program
>from another program, and return to the original program upon returning?
>
>And you will still have problems (I assume) to make future Rigel version
>backward compatible when you use fixed address relocation, even if you
>leave 50 byte or so of empty space at the end of the shell.
>
>--
>Jimmy Mårdell "The nice thing about standards is that
>mailto:mja@algonet.se there are so many of them to choose from."
>http://www.algonet.se/~mja
>IRC: Yarin "Sanity? I'm sure I have it on tape
>somewhere!"
>
I am pretty sure that any future additions to the shell (such as
additional ROM calls) will instead be through libraries instead of a
new version of the shell. So i would image that after you see version
1.0, that will be the last one, barring any bugs, while a new version
of Usgard must released to support additional ROM calls. So there is
an advantage to libraries, which Usgard no longer contains.
-mike pearce
References: