RE: A92: 92+ asm

To: <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: RE: A92: 92+ asm
From: "Dennis Ng" <onpaws@geocities.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 22:11:19 -0400
Delivered-To: assembly-92-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <35CCFDD4.9C66CDF6@tc.umn.edu>
Reply-To: assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org


But how about the library calls that Fargo intelligently handles. What about them? If youwere to just use processor calls, you'd be
rewriting alot of stuff.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org
>[mailto:owner-assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org]On Behalf Of Ben
>Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 9:40 PM
>To: assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: A92: 92+ asm
>
>
>
>There may not be a need for fargo on the 92+.  If someone can find out
>how to assemble  M68000 op-codes into strings and then use the 92+
>'exec' command to run them, they will run as asm programs w/o fargo.
>For new programs, all that needs to happen is for them to be assembled
>into 92+ asm files.
>

References:

A92: 92+ asm

From: Ben <rigg0022@tc.umn.edu>

Prev: A92: 92+ asm
Next: Re: A92: 92+ asm
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread