🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41560@ut-emx.uucp> lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) writes:
>In article <faheyr.661405562@silver> faheyr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Fahey <NECR0SIS>) writes:
>>aaron@stat.tamu.edu (Aaron Hightower) writes:
>>Hmm... I'll probably regret posting this, since the last time I did so, 
>>I got flamed to hell. (I am talking about reading/writing registers directly).
>>It seems that a few C programmers would rather write a large quantity of code
>>instead of just dealing with the info at the the source, i.e. registers.
>
>It's not that we're C programmers, it's that we're trying to do it correctly,
>so it doesn't break later on.  You can write incorrectly in C, and (believe
>it or not) you can write *correctly* in assembly as well.
>
>Poking around at the hardware when there is an operating-system interface
>is simply not acceptable.  I have done it before, and I've seen it break.
>You can't go breaking the rules and expect your software to work on new
>machines like the 3000.  Your code may work faster in some cases, but in
>some cases it won't work at all.
You can poke around the dffxxx point if you want to. It wont crash. 
And the code will work faster in *ALL* cases.
The filter can be toggled by using

	eor.b #2,$bfe001
	      ^
	      |
       You wont belive how long this hash sign took to find on this keyboard!

Why is it that C people tend to slag assembly language programmers off and
not visa-versa? Theres room for both languages.
>>filter_on:	move.w	#$7000,$bfe000
>>filter_off:	move.w	#$7002,$bfe000
If i remeber correctly, this might write over some other flags (mouse test for
a start off!)
You could use or.w & and.w instead of move.w for a better effect.

-- 
*********///  O O **A member of S.H.I.T. (Super High Intelegence Team)**///***
*       ///    u    Fight, defeat and kill organized laming.           ///   *
*  \\\ ///    ---      Zaphod (TCC)  csg019@uk.ac.cov.cck ok?     \\\ ///    *
****\\X//**********************************************************\\X//******