Re: A89: Re: Actual Assembly Programming?!
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Actual Assembly Programming?!
I know who made the shells, and how they made them.
it is ridiculous to think that someone would bust their ass for a few months
and come up with a shell, when assembly language is built into the
calculator. I know i sure wouldnt. You guys need to just take it easy and
wait a month until Ti provides assistance with Ti-89 assembly.
on a side note i know a limited amount of 68k. I started programming for
Fargo, before entering the z80 scene.
-Harper Maddox
jerky@ebicom.net
IRC nick: Geori
ICQ: 1214597
-----Original Message-----
From: David Phillips <electrum@tfs.net>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Actual Assembly Programming?!
>
>At 09:43 PM 9/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>There are certain reasons that we cant make assembly programs yet.
>>First of all, we dont know what any of the calls that Ti made are. Its
not
>>very fun to sit around and test 65,000 calls, having no idea whatsoever
>>where or what any of them do. We do not know the locations of safe ram
>>either.
>
>This didn't stop Dan Eble or David Ellsworth. ZShell and Fargo were alot
>of dissassembling and figuring out how it all worked.
>
>>Second of all, to effectively produce assembly programs we would need to
be
>>able to send one to the 89 in the correct syntax.
>>and last of all... most people, myself included, have no Ti-89 as of now.
>
>You're right, I didn't really think of that. I just think that there is
>way too much list traffic for an assembly list when no actual assembly
>programming has been discuessed yet.
>
>Does anyone on this list know M68000 yet?
>
>--
>David Phillips
>mailto:electrum@tfs.net
>ICQ: 13811951
>AOL/AIM: Electrum32
>