Protection

AL> Yeah, we saw it. In ZXF I don’t remember the numbers, the loder works like this: the stack is placed on
AL> a pre-compiled array and jp in tr-dos.

This is not so interesting. Now, if only the stack could be turned into executable codes.
Also, IMHO, you can benefit from the stack located in ROM.
The simplest example:

ADDR1 LD SP,#3D00;let's say
.............;rosin the brains
RET

ADDR1 ;via RET we'll get here
.............;something clogged
CALL ADDR2
..............;absolutely complete insanity

ADDR2 ;let's unpack what's on ADDR1
RET ;come back. Naturally, again on ADDR1

bye, with all the best wishes, Pavel Fedin.

PF> It's not that interesting. Now, if only the stack could be turned into executable
PF> codes. Also, IMHO, you can benefit from the stack located in ROM.
PF> The simplest example:

PF> ADDR1 LD SP,#3D00; let's say
PF> ..............;rosin the brains
PF> RET

So it was, but the stack is in ROM, that's no good, otherwise the necessary addresses are
read from it.

PF> ADDR1;via RET we'll get here
PF> .............;something clogged
PF> CALL ADDR2
PF> ..............;completely complete insanity

Yes, and it was clogged. In general, a stack in a loader is the best idea, it’s easy to get confused.

PF> ADDR2 ;unpack what’s in ADDR1
PF> RET ;come back. Naturally, again on ADDR1

Bullshit, a couple of minutes in the sts.

Regards, Alex from FFC COMPUTERS.

AL>> So it was, but the stack is in ROM, that’s no use, otherwise the necessary addresses are read from it
AL>> Well, choosing addresses is not a problem.

For loading, it’s problematic.

PF>> Well, finding addresses is not a problem.

AL> For loading, it’s problematic.

Why is it necessary for loading?

Bye, with a pack of vishezes, Pavel Fedin.

PF>> Why is it necessary for loading?

AL> Because loading requires execution in real time.

Well, so in real time, what is tied to
interrupts should also be executed. If there was a hardware timer in Speccy (there is in Pro), then
it would be possible to tie it up...

PF> Well, in real time, what is tied to
PF> interrupts should also be executed. If there was a hardware timer in Speccy (there is in Pro), then
PF> it would be possible to tie it up...

And if the drive has stopped, you will have to spin it up again, and the rest
can be done leisurely with STS.

By the way, SMUC already has a watch for Scorpio and is working. And with is-dos, too, there seem to be programs that display on the screen and automatically set the system date (such as the date
of file creation).

With all sorts of regards and wishes.
Igor.

... The Phoenix bird was reborn from the ashes, but crowed.

AL> And if the drive has stopped, you will have to spin it up again, and
AL> the rest
AL> you can go through the rest slowly with STS.

But you won’t be able to get through interruptions with STS...

IG> By the way, SMUC already has a clock for Scorpio and is working. And with IS-DOS
IG>, too, there seem to be programs that display on the screen, and automatically provide the system date
IG> (such as the date the file was created).

I saw this thing under IS-DOS, only it was under ZX-Next. And I also know about the watch on
Scorpio.

AL>> And if the drive has stopped, you will have to spin it up again, and
AL>> the rest
AL>> you can slowly go through the STS.

PF>> And you won’t get through the interruption with STS...

AL> If you use your head, you’ll get through it. :-)))))

Theoretically, yes, but in practice you need to have a processor no lower than Power PC 604e. :-)))

PF> Theoretically - yes, but in practice it is necessary to have a processor in your head no
PF> lower than Power PC 604e. :-)))

In theory, the head should be orders of magnitude larger than the PPC 604e. :-))))))))))))