On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:14:06 - "Simon Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh - and I'm doing all the development on Linux.
>
> It's been a while since I've tried a Linux build... Would you be
> interested in officially looking after the Linux side? If you're short
> of time it'd just be
Frode Tennebø wrote:
> Actually, I was using the latest CVS version. You are
> updating CVS? :)
Er, it's a bit stale at the moment! The bigger changes for the GUI have
been spread over a couple of months, and affected many modules. During
the same time some fixes and tweaks have been done to som
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:30:09 - "Simon Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'm fiddeling with SAM support. Mode 1 GFX and stdio (no ansi)
> > is fairly complete.
>
> Excellent - sounds very promising! I'm guessing mode 1 is to keep it
> speedy,
Well, it was just easier to do, mainly b
Frode Tennebø wrote:
> Long time :)
Mm, yeah! I've still been lurking in the background...
> So I'm fiddeling with SAM support. Mode 1 GFX and stdio (no ansi)
> is fairly complete.
Excellent - sounds very promising! I'm guessing mode 1 is to keep it
speedy, and keep the requirements
Hi Si,
Long time :)
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:42:49 - "Simon Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frode Tennebø wrote:
> > I was playing around with z88dk and my new and improved
> > graphics/stdio library for SAM
>
> Ooo, got any more tell us about that?
Well, it's the olympics and hence I
Frode Tennebø wrote:
> I was playing around with z88dk and my new and improved
> graphics/stdio library for SAM
Ooo, got any more tell us about that?
> are the following missing from Z80ops.h:
>
> Z80ops.h:instr(0x67,4) { xl=a; } endinstr; // ld l,a
> (or ixl/iyl ...)
> (and the rest
It's been low traffic lately, so here goes something highly relevant
at least. :)
I was playing around with z88dk and my new and improved graphics/stdio
library for SAM and testing stuff when I came over a rather strange bug.
I couldn't locate it immediately, but are the following missing from
Z8
Dave Hooper wrote:
> Then: Do it all again (second time round I get a rogue '+' symbol between
> the *s and the 8s)
Ah, I do get a + when running 0.78 on NT4, and can't delete it. Fortunately
the Win32 version seems to work correctly so I must have inadvertantly fixed
it!
Si
Correction:
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Si Owen wrote:
> Dave Hooper wrote:
> > (example: in this order
> > (1) SHIFT
> > (2) 8
> > (3)
> > (4)
Then: try to delete it all
Then: Do it all again (second time round I get a rogue '+' symbol between
the *s and the 8s)
Then: try to delete it all again
Dave Hooper wrote:
> (example: in this order
> (1) SHIFT
> (2) 8
> (3)
> (4)
What does your example do in DOS SimCoupe compared to a real Sam?
> obviously wouldn't be an issue for a win32 port
I wouldn't bet on it! At the moment mine switches to the unshifted version
when you let go of shift
Hi All,
Looks like Simon has indeed found a bug in SimCoupe - one of many no
doubt. I'll really try to check and correct this in the next week. Chris's
problems with SimCoupe and defender may also be related to the frame
sync. mechanism used in the DOS version. On the UNIX version I j
yeh, and then there's all the bugs in the DOS keyboard handler ... but i
won't go into all that
(example: in this order
(1) SHIFT
(2) 8
(3)
(4)
obviously wouldn't be an issue for a win32 port
)
dave
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Simon Cooke wrote:
> Hey Allan... here's some bugs for you in 0.78's so
> Hey Allan... here's some bugs for you in 0.78's source...
btw, what's the situation with the source for the DOS and Linux versions?
I've been converting the Linux X version over to Win32 as it's the closest
to a Win32 version(it runs, but I've still got the display code in pieces!).
My worry is
Hey Allan... here's some bugs for you in 0.78's source...
Line 333; this should be:
hpen = LineNo-59;
// new code!
if (hpen > 192) hpen = 192;
Also, the status_reg stuff... you're only allowing one interrupt
at any time... how exactly does interrupt clearing work? Does each
interrupt last for 1
14 matches
Mail list logo
