There are three hidden filenames there, Suzuki, HayashiH and RickY. Are those 
bytes safe to use?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Stephen Adolph wrote:
> how permanently protected does the 6 byte hole need to be?
> presume the RAM must contain opcodes and not just data?
> a commonly used place is "Hayash"...thats 6 bytes
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:49 AM Kurt McCullum <ku...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> __
>> Got the code working properly but this leads to another question. I am in 
>> search of 6 bytes of RAM. I used the same idea behind TS-DOS when the DOS-ON 
>> feature is used. That inserts 6 bytes of code that calls the OptRom ON 
>> routine and then jumps to the specific section of the Option ROM. When that 
>> routine is done, it calls the OptRom OFF routine and returns. This is really 
>> clean and only requires one EXEC statement in Basic to work. But it does 
>> require the 6 bytes of RAM. I'm looking through the technical documents 
>> right now to see if I can find a slice but I thought I would ask in case 
>> someone may know of a specific area I could use.
>> 
>> Kurt
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 1:07 PM, Kurt McCullum wrote:
>>> Thanks John,
>>> 
>>> You are correct. It appears to be a stack issue. I've got the initial error 
>>> resolved but I've still got to do a little more work. Appreciate the 
>>> insights.
>>> 
>>> Kurt
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 12:18 PM, John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
>>>> Seems like you've embedded code in OptROM that you copy to ALT-LCD.
>>>> 
>>>> When you say "the cold start recovery routine of TS-DOS" do you mean the 
>>>> NEC POKE and EXEC to activate TS-DOS?
>>>> 
>>>> If so it seems your only trigger to do the LINE install is the BASIC ROM's 
>>>> OptROM install EXEC routine. So whenever the ROM installs, it will fill in 
>>>> your code into ALT-LCD.
>>>> 
>>>> I can't think of anything that you would have to do different than 
>>>> whatever TS-DOS does.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect some stack imbalance, clobbered registers or clobbered RAM 
>>>> variables.
>>>> 
>>>> -- John.
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to