Brad: I tried a DAT followed by a PUB followed by a DAT then another PUB. Both DAT's were placed before the PUB's. Of course they consumed the bytes in the method table. Same on both PropTool and bst
Am I correct by understanding what you said, that if I place the rest of the code in a sub-object, then the method table at the beginning will not be filled with the sub-object methods, etc ?
Did you implement the SPACE (or whatever it was to be called) function to reserve space at the beginning of hub (about $10+) ?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Links to other interesting threads:
Cluso99 said...
Brad: I tried a DAT followed by a PUB followed by a DAT then another PUB. Both DAT's were placed before the PUB's. Of course they consumed the bytes in the method table. Same on both PropTool and bst
I'd hope so. I have taken quite extensive lengths to ensure 100% binary compatibility.
Cluso99 said...
Am I correct by understanding what you said, that if I place the rest of the code in a sub-object, then the method table at the beginning will not be filled with the sub-object methods, etc ?
Yes. Simply a pointer to the sub object instance, and a pointer for the spin method(s)
Cluso99 said...
Did you implement the SPACE (or whatever it was to be called) function to reserve space at the beginning of hub (about $10+) ?
No.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
Thanks Brad. Yes I know you have spent a great deal of time to get it to output identical code. FYI I did check the ZiCog/TriBlade compilation recently and it was identical.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Links to other interesting threads:
Comments
Am I correct by understanding what you said, that if I place the rest of the code in a sub-object, then the method table at the beginning will not be filled with the sub-object methods, etc ?
Did you implement the SPACE (or whatever it was to be called) function to reserve space at the beginning of hub (about $10+) ?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)
· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBladeProp is: www.bluemagic.biz/cluso.htm
I'd hope so. I have taken quite extensive lengths to ensure 100% binary compatibility.
Yes. Simply a pointer to the sub object instance, and a pointer for the spin method(s)
No.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)
· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBladeProp is: www.bluemagic.biz/cluso.htm