RE: A92: 256K & interrupt routines

To: "'assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org'" <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: RE: A92: 256K & interrupt routines
From: Jean-Jacques MICHEL <jjm@han.daewoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:49:57 +0100
Reply-To: assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org

>>> Could somebody justify the use of :
>>> 
>>>         move.w  #$2700,sr
>>>         move.l  ($020064),old_int_1
>>>         move.l  #int_1,($020064)
>>>         move.w  #$2000,sr

>>It saved you the trouble of setting/clearing the bit that
>>enables/disabled the "unauthorized writing under $120" trap.
>>It's the same technique used by Fargo itself - the memory wraps around
>>at $020000, and the trap isn't activated "up there".

That's pretty obvious, why didn't I thought about it sooner ?
Thank you for your answer.

May I suggest then to use $040064 instead...
(I tested SPRITE.ASM with this and it worked fine with my 256K Fargo v1.7  :-) )

									JJM

PS : The upgrade schematics and patch for Fargo soon on :

	http://www.daewoo.fr/~jjm/ti92.html

Prev: Re: A92: 256K & interrupt routines
Next: A92: Traps
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread