From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2005-03-30 23:06:27
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Gabor Lenart wrote:
> No, as I've said I would introduce a new mode bit to mean "old CPU type bit
> (6502/65816) is obsoleted you should ignore it and check with the new
> method instead". If this bit IS set, you can stop now and refuse further
> work with that object. However you're right it's a "bit" messy solution.
Ok. But once I would like to check if the module is compiled for the 65C02, I
have a problem.
> So I see it's absolutly better to create a bit complicated scheme (like my
> idea, of course better solution can be found, probably) than to have
> several absolutly different home grown (I mean every developer would have
> totally different) formats.
Another option would be to look for an executable file format that has the
features you want. It's a common mistake to aim too high, and I would hate to
see André fall into this trap.
> Anyway please warn me to stop flaming if you find my mails meaningless or
> desctructive :) or something.
No problem with me:-) But I think, all is said, and it's Andrés decision now.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.