Hello, * On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 06:52:54PM +0100 smf wrote: > > On 25/08/2018 12:52, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: > > For the article, cf. > > http://csbruce.com/cbm/transactor/pdfs/trans_v7_i02.pdf, page 37-39 in > > the PDF, or 33-35 as written on the page. > > > > Interestingly, it seems Philip A. Slaymaker fixed the problem, but he > > does not know for sure which of the patches fixes it, or if it is all of > > them. > > > > Or do I misunderstand that article? > If you think he does not know, then I think you misunderstood the article. I am referring to statements like the following: "A possible SAVE@ related bug is in the serial bus communication routines. [...] Gerry Neufeld's theory of a serial bus ATN related SAVE@ bug is presented in [...] If a new command is sent before SAVE@ is completed, the BAM or directory may not be updated correctly [...] I have not tested his theory either, [...]" So, we have a bug which might affect SAVE@, or it might not. Nobody knows, not even the author. This looks to me as if he is not completely sure about the nature of SAVE@. He knows he has fixed it, but he does not know for sure which patches all belong to the fix. Having said this: If using absolute LDA $00FF,X instead of ZP LDA $FF,X is part of the fix, then 251968-01 does not include that fix yet. Thus, 251968-02 is the first ROM on the 1541 that includes this. All 1570 and the 1571-03 ROM (which is the first 1571 ROM known to me) include that fix, too. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/Received on 2018-08-25 22:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.