| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1408 |
Packer/decruncher for under IO?
So, what's the current rec for tools that let you load stuff that will crunch down to less than 51199 bytes, but decompresses to the entire area from from (ooh, for example) $0801 to $e1e0? I thought pucrunch took care of that, but either I'm mistaken or I don't know what flags to use.
(why yes, I do have an entry for Show Me Your (Vector) Balls that fits that criteria) |
|
... 15 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 705 |
@Oswald. That is what i do as well. Although it does use 2 cycles more overall for each register save/restore which is trivial |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5086 |
Quote: @Oswald. That is what i do as well. Although it does use 2 cycles more overall for each register save/restore which is trivial
2 cycles more ?
lda $00
sta $00
= 6 cycles
sta $1000
lda #$00
= 6 cycles |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 705 |
Darn. Sorry oswald. Ofcourse its 6 cycles. :-) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1408 |
Hrm, and now if I change back to $30 it still works. I suspect I didn't check in a version close enough to hunt down what the real issue was now.
@JackAsser, very good point about future proofing. Linking issues were one of the biggest reasons I didn't manage to complete my entry for BFP in 2006 :-/ |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1787 |
Quoting ChristopherJamHrm, and now if I change back to $30 it still works. I suspect I didn't check in a version close enough to hunt down what the real issue was now.
There are two solutions to this:
1. make more fine granular commits with decent comments.
2. regress to being 13 years old when we could still remember all the steps and juggle them around with the occasional help of pen and paper.
:) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2970 |
I've been using $30 for years before realizing $34 has exactly the same results. Still keep using $30. I think $30 and $34 have the same level of usefulness, since they're equivalent. Also, what JackAsser said. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11365 |
i'll just quote it again because it cant be said often enough:
Quote:
Save and set $01 in the irq handler anyway, always unless you really need the cycles. One day 4h before deadline you'll get the brilliant idea to load the next part while you irq is running => boom!
Been there - done that! :)
Oh and for real safety push the values on stack instead of zp if you get the other brilliant idea to allow an irq happen inside the handler.
:) |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1787 |
@krill: true, although if you are bank switching a lot $34 is helpful because it allows inc/dec to switch I/O on or off without mapping in ROM.
I rarely move out of the $33-$37 range myself. Well, except for tape bits. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1408 |
...so, now I've a one filer that doesn't crunch to less than 51199 bytes.
My disks used to be littered with frozen games this size long before I started cross developing, but my Action Replay was quite happy to load them for me. I can happily send them across to my real c64 even now using codenet.
But what's current best practice for loading them on a bare c64? VICE is understandably barfing. And is it considered bad form to release a single such .prg without placing it on a .d64 with a loader? |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1408 |
..and yes, @JackAsser, I currently have the brilliant idea to allow an irq to happen inside the handler :D |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
