> On 2016-12-28, at 23:19, Jim Brain <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On 12/28/2016 12:20 PM, smf wrote: >> On 28/12/2016 17:34, Jim Brain wrote: >>> >>> access $fffd (jmp) >>> <lots of time elapses for VIC badline> >>> access $fffd (low byte of vector) >> >> How do you tell between <lots of time elapses for VIC badline> and >> >> access $fffd >> <lots of time elapses when CPU only accesses RAM> >> access $fffc > Not sure you do. Would ther be an issue in not worrying about it? If we want to keep compatibility - I am afraid the answer is "yes". A simple example: a program uses the RAM area under KERNAL as a temporary storage and reads from the consecutive addresses there. I know for a fact that such programs exist. So you would need to monitor the configuration bits or the _CS or ... The next example is copying KERNAL from ROM to RAM - lots of programs to this in order to modify a few things in the KERNAL. Here monitoring the _CS won't help as the program reads from ROM locations and you know what happens when you don't differentiate between the _RST induced reads and the same done by the program. -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2016-12-29 10:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.