Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
Jimmy Mårdell wrote:
>
> Ben Sferrazza wrote:
> >
> > I relocate all TSRs to the end of Rigel. I'm still deciding whether I
> > should hide TSRs from the TI-OS (so they can't be deleted when
> > running). But other than that, assuming you don't delete any TSRs or
> > Rigel (while one is running) it is quite stable.
>
> And when the user runs a Rigel program, you disable interrupts, inserts
> the
> selected program between Rigel and the TSR programs, activate the
> interrupts
> after having updated the calls? I guess you need to move variables
> through
> the memory quite often to do that, and I doubt that makes the Rigel core
> smaller than the Usgard core (it's just very different).
Well the fact that Rigel uses this method for TSRs isn't what makes it
smaller, it's a combination of a lot of things. The fact of the matter
is Rigel w/ the shell is less than 1500 bytes and Usgard with a shell is
more than 2200 bytes. The shells are basically equal in size, making
the Rigel core substantially smaller than the Usgard core (700 bytes or
more). I really don't care whether people use Rigel. In fact right
now, I would probably encourage people to use Usgard. However, the
facts are there that Rigel is 2/3 the size of Usgard w/ a shell, and
provides many more memory saving and innovative features.
References: