On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:43:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/08/2003 00:30:49 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > The code seems correct although far than optimized. I'd propose:
> >
> > Lab1001E moveq#0,d5Clear MS word.
> > lea La
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Machine Code Extension
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:20:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm - one of my old machine code extensions reports
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Thierry Godefroy wrote:
I see where is the confusion: by name table, I meant "definition table",
you _must_ keep the name of each function/procedure even, padding it with
a null byte _if_and_only_if_ the length of the name of the PROC/FN is odd...
Well, I'm not sure what you
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 at 14:33:18, Lau wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>Marcel Kilgus wrote:
>> Thierry Godefroy wrote:
>>
>>>I see where is the confusion: by name table, I meant "definition
>>>table",
>>>you _must_ keep the name of each function/procedure even, padding it with
>>>a null byte
In a message dated 11/08/2003 00:30:49 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:20:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hmm - one of my old machine code extensions reports an error on QL2K (oddly
>enough, it reports Channel Not Open when I use d$=SAV_DEV$).
>
>Can anyone s
Thierry Godefroy wrote:
> I see where is the confusion: by name table, I meant "definition table",
> you _must_ keep the name of each function/procedure even, padding it with
> a null byte _if_and_only_if_ the length of the name of the PROC/FN is odd...
Well, I'm not sure what you're taking, but
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:20:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm - one of my old machine code extensions reports an error on QL2K (oddly
> enough, it reports Channel Not Open when I use d$=SAV_DEV$).
>
> Can anyone spot anything wrong with the code - I wonder if I have cocked up
> the return st
Hmm - one of my old machine code extensions reports an error on QL2K (oddly enough, it reports Channel Not Open when I use d$=SAV_DEV$).
Can anyone spot anything wrong with the code - I wonder if I have cocked up the return stack...
Sorry about the mess - I cannot find the original assembler, so
- Original Message -
From: "Thierry Godefroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Machine Code Extension
>
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:20:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:53:23 +0100, P Witte wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Thierry Godefroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Machine Code Extension
&g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm - one of my old machine code extensions reports an error on QL2K
(oddly enough, it reports Channel Not Open when I use d$=SAV_DEV$).
Can anyone spot anything wrong with the code - I wonder if I have cocked
up the return stack...
Looks fine to me - other than being a
In a message dated 11/08/2003 18:01:36 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see where is the confusion: by name table, I meant "definition table",
you _must_ keep the name of each function/procedure even, padding it with
a null byte _if_and_only_if_ the length of the name of the PROC/FN
In a message dated 11/08/2003 00:30:49 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The code seems correct although far than optimized. I'd propose:
Lab1001E moveq #0,d5 Clear MS word.
lea Lab10076,a4 Name string address
move.w (a2)+,d5 Name length
ad
In a message dated 09/08/2003 15:17:53 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks fine to me - other than being a little long-winded (spuriuous
first load of a1 and fiddling about with the copying when there's a
perfectly good count handy in d5 and a5 (e.g.) could have been used from
th
14 matches
Mail list logo
