🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:28:16 -0400 David Cole <dbcole@colesoft.com> wrote:

:>BBlack writes:
:> > Another point: a pre-assembled patch area is usually
:> > covered by an existing base register, while an EXTENDed
:> > area may not be.

:>JGilmore wrote:
:> > and this is certainly true. It is not, however, very
:> > interesting. Base registers retain their traditional
:> > usefulness for addressing blocks of constants and,
:> > sometimes, DSECTs. For almost all other purposes much
:> > better constructs are now available and should be used
:> > instead.

:>BDissen wrote:
:> > It is much better to use a pre-calculated base/displacement
:> > than to [manually] calculate the relative offset and divide
:> > by two (and is it relative to the current instruction
:> > address, or the new PSW? Same for BRC and LARL? - I should
:> > look it up).

:> > It is better to reduce the chance of error, rather than make
:> > things fancy.

:>Ben: The chance of error can be reduced *substantially* for large
:>zaps (now matter what addressing method you prefer) if you'd use an
:>ASM2ZAP program: a tool that scrapes a "PRINT ON,GEN,DATA" listing
:>and produces zap statements based on the extracted machine code.

If it was a long enough zap, I would run it thru the assembler. Short zaps I
would just do by hand (and make sure that the replaced data was what I
expected).

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel


Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.