361
News / Re: Bobby Carrot released
« on: July 02, 2011, 11:17:06 pm »
It indeed looks great! Tell me, do we have any Nspire emulator yet that supports the CX?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 361
News / Re: Bobby Carrot released« on: July 02, 2011, 11:17:06 pm »
It indeed looks great! Tell me, do we have any Nspire emulator yet that supports the CX?
362
News / Re: New Board added for Discontinued Projects« on: July 02, 2011, 03:48:18 pm »
I think that's part of it, yes. And Star Fox never reached a state of completion. However, I'm not sure it was ever given its own subforum.
363
News / Re: New Board added for Discontinued Projects« on: July 02, 2011, 03:45:47 pm »
Sounds good
mrmprog: probably by either explicit announcement of the author or after discussion between the author and admins. Edit: And yeah, it should help clean things up a bit. I did like having it like that on UTI. 364
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 03:43:48 pm »
Don't forget thepenguin77; he did a lot of the testing and helped get most of the information in my post here: http://ourl.ca/11891/224537
I played the minor role of beta testing FLASHY (I took my 84+SE 1.02->1.03->1.02), as did a couple others, who can speak for themselves. (I think DJ was among them, IIRC.) 365
Other / Re: lego 3D printer/plotter in instructables« on: July 02, 2011, 03:39:20 pm »
Link for the lazy: http://www.instructables.com/id/Lego-3D-printerplotter/
Quote Also, this takes a massive number of partsAnd just how many is that? 366
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 03:23:00 pm »
It's because the 83+ doesn't have the port that's been used to bypass the protection on the boot code.
We don't know whether or not modification of its boot code is possible yet, I think. 367
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 01:51:32 pm »
Well, there's what Brandon said above. You could add utilities and recovery tools (or even a mini-OS, perhaps). We could get rid of OS validation, etc. But, admittedly, there isn't much use to changing the bootcode beyond that, at least AFAICT.
368
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 01:26:13 pm »I did something else wrong, it works now. (I almost feel like I didn't press ON.)Oh, okay. So TI's method of switching to mode 1 and then to mode 0, ultimately ending up in bank 1, is officially pointless 369
The Axe Parser Project / Re: Axe Parser« on: July 02, 2011, 01:25:10 pm »
Oh, so he did. I couldn't see it in the 1pt font My bad.
I'm wondering what their use would be though... It seems to me that it would be more flexible to allow retrieving the address of a label. Part of the thing with anonymous functions is that you need a syntax to invoke them. Since they would presumably be passed as pointers, does that mean we're finally getting a dynamic call and jump? 370
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 01:05:06 pm »Calcdude, I figured out that you only have to execute code in a bank controlled by port (06).Ah, okay. Do we still not know why just executing TI's code from bank 1 directly doesn't work? Quote Also, I figured out what was wrong with the LCD, I had a few "ld ($10), a" where I should have had "out ($10), a"Oops 371
The Axe Parser Project / Re: Axe Parser« on: July 02, 2011, 01:02:39 pm »
Λ - uppercase lambda
λ - lowercase lambda More seriously, Ashbad's referring to inline functions, I presume, which probably aren't going to happen. 372
News / Re: FLASHY - 83/4 series boot code modification« on: July 02, 2011, 12:52:58 pm »
Excellent!
thepenguin has, as stated in the other topic (but I'll restate it here), created a modified boot code image that conditionally runs your own code before anything else happens, and Brandon's stated his intentions (he might have already done it) to make a similar version that either starts normally, runs what's on RAM page 0 (which is what thepenguin's does), or runs what's on $2C/$6C (which would be 84+(SE) only, I assume). ...everything new we learned about the calculator hardware on boot (which is weird)Our current understanding, as I remember it, goes mostly as follows: The calculator starts in a memory map mode that's mostly like mode 0 (port 6 controls bank 1, port 7 controls bank 2, port 5 controls bank 3) except that page $3F/$7F is swapped into bank 0 (where page $00 normally is). $00 is swapped into banks 1 and 2 and RAM page 0 into bank 3. A jump ending in a bank swapped in because of port 6 (bank 1 in mode 0, additionally bank 2 in mode 1) swaps $00 back into bank 0. Ports $0E and $0F have nothing to do with this; as far as we know they are worthless. The initial states of other ports can be found in the appropriate topic (state of the calculator at boot, thepenguin/BrandonW: I probably forgot something/got something wrong, so correct me if I did. Edit: Fixed information regarding swapping $00 back. 373
The Axe Parser Project / Re: Which Axe version do you use?« on: July 01, 2011, 05:47:46 pm »
0.4.8. I haven't bothered to update it for a while now. On the other hand, I haven't been using Axe...
374
Humour and Jokes / Re: Bleem: The secret integer between 3 and 4« on: June 30, 2011, 05:47:07 pm »
The TI-8Bleem... (pronounced eighty-bleem)
375
ASM / Re: help me fix my calculator!« on: June 30, 2011, 01:53:10 pm »
By "this" I meant "to archive the original program." Sorry
Anyway, another advantage to using _arc_unarc is that it's smaller; you don't have to call _chkfindsym yourself. |
|