On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ullrich von Bassewitz <uz@musoftware.de> wrote: > Maybe you can explain a bit what that means. Either there's nothing to worry > about, or you're planning some really complex things, in which case the > necessary precautions depend heavily on your program. Maybe I'm missing something big then... My project is something like a mini OS. I know I'll eventually want the core of it to be assembly, but for now I want to see how much mileage I can get at a higher level. At this point, all the action happens in the interrupt, where the context- and focus-switching takes place. > > Also, it looks like > > calling into any library code from an ISR would require separate > > parameter stacks as well (except for maybe single-param fastcall > > functions). > > Why do you want to do explicit ZP placement? What is so bad > about the standard ZP location? Actually, I have no clue what the standard placement is. If the linker takes care not to re-use any important locations, I'll have no problem adjusting to that. =) > > I can't find where > > cbm_k_load is defined. > > It's in libsrc/cbm/c_load.s. "Windows indexing service" struck again... sorry. Thought I changed that. :-/ // Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Sun Apr 25 18:12:35 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-04-25 18:12:38 CEST