[sebhc] HASL-8 Bug/Corruption?
CarrollWaddell at sc.rr.com
Fri May 14 14:05:14 CDT 2004
By the way, if anyone wants a cassette tape with the software in
question, I will mail you a physical tape that I am using.
Walter Moore wrote:
>When I looked at Dave's offending code sequence, It sure seemed to me that
>there was a possibility that an extraneous zero byte might have entered the
>Code at 0x320E when the original tape was last read or maybe when it was
>written. It was just one of those "programmer" things where you want to
>take a look at it and double check it.
>So it was time to get out the old H8-5 card and try and load my copy of
>HASL-8. After four or five attempts, I actually got something on the tape
>to load, but the loaded image ended somewhere in the 065.xxx rage. I think
>it was TED-8. So I tried the next image on the tape (The TED-8 and HASL-8
>came on the same tape, with each image written twice). It actually loaded!
>Wow. It was long enough too!
>So I poked around to look at the code sequence. The instructions didn't
>match what Dave reported from the emulator. I did find the "SAVE?" text,
>followed by some calls and tried to follow them. No such luck.
>My thoughts were that I had a different version of HASL-8 than what is in
>the archive. So I decided to hook a terminal up to the card and actually
>run the program so I could get a version number. That required removing the
>card to change jumpers. Just to let you know how long it had been since I
>last used the card, it was jumpered for a 300 baud 20mA current loop from
>back when I had an H-9 and LA36 Decwriter II, say 1979.
>After changing the jumpers and hoping I hooked the terminal up correctly, I
>reinstalled the card and tried to load the tape. No such luck. I haven't
>been able to load anything since. I plan to run the tests in the manual
>this weekend and recalibrate the card.
>Where is all this leading to...?
>In looking at the archives, there isn't any version information in the file
>names or anywhere else that I saw. I think we need to have this information
>available. For example, I have Extended Benton Harbor Basic versions
>10.01.00 and 10.02.00 on tape (don't know if they are good). Does anyone
>have suggestions on filename format? Or do we go with a tree whenever there
>is more than one version. Now I'll throw in the problem where two people
>upload the same version, but there is a difference of a couple of bytes. If
>both copies work, then how is that to be resolved?
>Delivered by the SEBHC Mailing List
Delivered by the SEBHC Mailing List
More information about the Sebhc