From: Gabor Lenart (lgb_at_lgb.hu)
Date: 2005-03-29 14:08:27
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:28:14PM +0200, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:41AM +0200, fachat wrote:
> > Currently I am more into option 2 (i.e. optional header), but I may be
> > convinced otherwise.
>
> In my eyes, the beauty of the o65 format is its simplicity, because this makes
> very small loaders possible. I'm of course not the one to decide it, but I
> would prefer a solution which keeps parsing as simple as possible. This would
> rule out additional "optional header fields".
Right, I had similar feelings inside, when I've commented as 'solve the
meaning of life' style problems in .o65 :) I haven't seen loaders other
than mine loading .o65 files, but I'm using a simple byte sequence to
compare the header against to check if it is valid .o65 for my loader or not.
So right, it's not worth to overcomplicate loaders just for this purpose.
However besides this it would not so bad to encode CPU type at least if no
more, in a single byte for example (maybe 256 types should be enough
for everyone, errrmmmm ) ...
>
> > Looking for comments.
>
> Done:-)
:)
- Gábor
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.