Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > C64 Coding > modify Exomiser compressor to black list some memory locations
2019-04-28 18:30
oziphantom

Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490
modify Exomiser compressor to black list some memory locations

Does anybody know a way to modify the exomizer compression algorithm to black list FF0X memory locations to never be read from, i.e don't allow them to be used as part of a sequence?

I guess a post process would also work, if there is a simple way to convert use a sequence to literal bytes..
 
... 20 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
2019-05-02 14:13
oziphantom

Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490
ok I see what you are saying, do the forward decompress not the backwards decompress, this then means I only have to do the slow method for 255 bytes tops
2019-05-02 14:38
Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980
No, what i said should apply to either depack direction.

I'm not quite sure which direction would give more optimisation opportunities for the $ff0X range check at the moment, but both would probably have to do with the difference of write pointer vs back-reference read pointer crossing the 64K bank boundary or not.

But if you intend to depack while loading, forward decompression is the way to go.
2019-05-02 14:54
oziphantom

Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490
wait that won't work, to get PHA one must go backwards.
Since its FF0X going backwards(assuming you start above it, and if you don't just use a version that skips the check altogether) gives you 248 bytes max that won't need the check garanteed.

If you go forward then you only have 248 bytes where one must check for FF0X however you can't use PHA to write..
2019-05-02 14:56
oziphantom

Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490
But if you intend to depack while loading, forward decompression is the way to go.

Why is forward better from loading? (apart from it saves you flipping the file )
2019-05-02 15:30
Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980
Okay, then backward decompression is a given, so any potential performance differences to forward decompression are moot.

Forward decompression is usually suited better for decompression while loading mainly because loading itself is usually performed in the forward direction. You can then decompress in-place* in the same direction. That should work for backward compression as well, given that loading is done in the same direction as well.

* Read buffer (loaded compressed file) is a subset of the write buffer (decompressed file), both end at the same address using forward direction. For Exomizer, there are a few (3-ish) compressed bytes beyond the uncompressed data.
2019-05-11 09:25
oziphantom

Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 490
Its in, and it works :D
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
Walt/Bonzai
grasstust/Hoaxers
Case/Padua
Airwolf/F4CG
Mike
Alakran_64
RS-232
iceout/Avatar/HF
MWR/Visdom
St0rmfr0nt/Quantum
Holy Moses/Role
Trap/Bonzai
HOL2001/Quantum
Fred/Channel 4
Steffan/BOOM!
The MeatBall
csio/monarchy c+4
Unlock/Padua/Albion
Guests online: 126
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.7)
2 13:37  (9.7)
3 Mojo  (9.7)
4 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
5 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
6 What Is The Matrix 2  (9.6)
7 The Demo Coder  (9.6)
8 Uncensored  (9.6)
9 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
10 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
Top onefile Demos
1 Layers  (9.6)
2 No Listen  (9.6)
3 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
4 Party Elk 2  (9.6)
5 Copper Booze  (9.6)
6 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
7 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
8 Onscreen 5k  (9.5)
9 Morph  (9.5)
10 Libertongo  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Performers  (9.3)
2 Booze Design  (9.3)
3 Oxyron  (9.3)
4 Triad  (9.3)
5 Censor Design  (9.3)
Top Fullscreen Graphicians
1 Joe  (9.7)
2 Sulevi  (9.6)
3 The Sarge  (9.6)
4 Veto  (9.6)
5 Facet  (9.6)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2024
Page generated in: 0.052 sec.