Re: New draft version of o65 file format

From: fachat (
Date: 2005-03-29 21:22:49


On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:02:00PM +0200, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> > Please see a draft at
> 1. I think "d64copy floppy modules" is not a good name. In fact, these


In fact I have added a section (in the index file, not the file 
format definition) where the uses of the file format are listed.

Maybe you and the all others that use the file format could send me some
text to add that describes their use of the file format.
(probably also with a description what special features are used and what
other restrictions are imposed, e.g. in terms of mode bits, name encodings

> 2. While I wrote my own parser, I stumbled across the definition of the
>    relocation tables (2.6.4.). IMHO, it is not always clear which (and
>    how many) bytes follow after the different formats. @@@SRT
If you have any problems, ask me, probably in private mail. We can work
out more examples for the last section if necessary.

> 3. 2.6.3) undefined references list and 2.6.5) exported globals list:
>    I want to discuss if it makes sense to define an maximum name length

I have added a comment, which also comes from Uz' opinion that the target
platform should just be able to interpret it.

>    here. The parser I just wrote uses an upper limit of 1024 byte; any

The file handling code in the "xa" should handle arbitrary length names,
and my file loader skips over any length until it finds a null-byte.
(all IIRC)


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.