RE: A86: Libraries and Loaders
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: A86: Libraries and Loaders
To solve the problem of having lots of libraries, just give them an illegal
name so they don't clutter up the program menu, like 0graylib for example.
Then make an ASM program that displays the libraries, and lets you either
delete them, or toggle between a legal and illegal name, so you can send them
over the link.
________________
Jeff Tyrrill
http://tyrrill-ticalc.home.ml.org/
http://ti-files.home.ml.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org On Behalf Of Dan Eble
Sent: Monday, August 04, 1997 7:35 PM
To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A86: Libraries and Loaders
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, B. Nagel wrote:
> > What if those things change during the course of execution? If the
> > program you run creates a new variable, there's a good chance the memory
> > will be shifted around and the will write back into the wrong place.
> > It would be prudent to get look up the program's address again.
>
> Now you have a point, if a prog was deleted and another was created it
> would shift everything. Okay, I will change that in the next version of
> AShell.
>
> Either way, asm progs with imported functions cant be called with Asm(
Right, but is it better to have 1 type of program that is incompatible
with the TI system, or to have many types of programs that are
incompatible with the TI system and with each other, each requiring its
own shell and loader?
> I'll talk to him, he just got an 86 and he's going to port Insane Game
> :)
And I'll mail David. What's Insane Game? I've heard of it, but never
played it. (Reply privately on that one.)
> > Besides, a program can be executable _and_ export functions at the same
> > time. In this case, it would have to start at _asm_exec_ram.
>
> I dont like this: a program should only export 1 function. Suppose we
> have a library with 10 functions, and between every executable program,
> only 6 of those functions are used. We have 4 functions sitting there
> wasting mem.
If we design the libraries well, that won't happen. This is one situation
in which we can exploit the knowledge of Hock and Ellsworth.
Above all, we shouldn't make any final decisions until at least a week or
two after TI has released the official information to everyone. That will
give all of us a good while to peruse the functions and experiment, to
help determine what we need in a base system library and what we don't.
> I'm not worried about export tables taking up mem, I'm worried about
> unused functions.
Like I said, design will make the difference. I'd rather not have
millions of library programs to page through (either in the menu bar or on
the Delete screen). Anyone else hate superfluous vars?
> ditto to what I said above
>
Me too! :) Send replies to CaLcDo0D@aol.com. (just kidding)
--------
Dan Eble (mailto:eble@cis.ohio-state.edu)
(http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~eble)