From: Thomas H. <tho...@in...> - 2003-05-21 13:19:23
|
On Wed, 21 May 2003 13:02:49 CEST, lv...@cl... wrote: > Actually the previous > code pretty much did the same thing as this new code I wrote, > except that I tried to document exactly why it did work, and > the relationship between this piece of code and the assembler > part. Honestly, I tried not to change anything (except > #ifdeffing the undocumented regs init, which was a mistake as > Thomas found). If I hadn't done that change, Tomas wouldn't > have suffered for the bug, so I apologize for this. You don't have to apologize for this - since you documented the code very well, the problem wasn't too hard to find :-) While I was searching the cause for the Pexec problem, I also had a look in the original GEMDOS Pexec code... I quickly put it away again, it is an unreadable mess! So I really appreciate your work to have cleaned up this file! Thomas |