Re: Another file question (PET)

From: Ethan Dicks (
Date: 2002-11-20 14:58:55

> Hi!
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:23:49AM +0100, Andre Fachat wrote:
> > yes indeed the PET kernal jump table at the end of kernal space is
> > quite underdeveloped. In fact many useful jumps are missing as you
> > state.
> [...]
> According to the tests using VICE, my file routines work on all
> 3/4/8000 PETs with these changes (the 2001 PET is not supported by
> cc65 anyway).

By 2001, do you mean the BASIC 1.0 static RAM PET?  I have a 2001
that is, essentially, the american version of the 3001-32K... 

When I'm testing my BASIC 2.0 stuff under VICE, I select 3001 and all
is well, just as it is on my 32K 2001-N.


Visit "The Seventh Continent"

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.4.