Re: A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM

Re: A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM

• To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM
• From: Nate Mueller <nlmueller@students.wisc.edu>
• Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:27:53 -0600
• Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• Delivered-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• In-Reply-To: <199901291715.JAA01742@smtp4.nwnexus.com>
• References: <03da01be4b39$963aaf40$4d1b7ed1@eddie>
• Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

>Thanks for taking the time to try and answer my question.
>
>But, that is not the problem.  I wrote the particular PC program
>that I am using.  It does not have anything to do with VT100 or any
>other standard.  It simply displays whatever is received at the
>COM port.  And it displays nothing.  Even if it were receiving
>binary rather than ascii, it would show something.  But I get no
>indication that anything is received at all.
>
>In the example I used, I transmitted a pure 'string' so even if it
>were in a binary format, that format would have produced an ascii
>string.
>
>I think the problem lies in the fact that there must be some
>handshake thing that I am not doing.  I did read something about
>a low level control of the link port, but I assumed that the
>transmit() function just filled the transmit buffer and that was
>blindly sent to the link port.  Apparently that is not so.

I've made some successful link stuff, and I lifted the SendByte and
RecieveByte routenes from Tetris.  I haven't tried hooking the calc to a
computer, but I can talk to a modem with them.

	--Nate

• Re: A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM
• From: "Michael S. Davis" <ipscone@halcyon.com>

• A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM
• From: "Miles Raymond" <m_rayman@bigfoot.com>
• Re: A89: Re: Serial Communication in ASM
• From: "Mike Davis" <ipscone@halcyon.com>

• Prev: Re: A89: Re: Re: Serial Communication in ASM
• Next: Re: A89: Phoenix
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread