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.