[sebhc] HASL-8 Bug/Corruption?

Carroll Waddell 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 mailing list