home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!incom!public!esfra.sub.org!hotb.sub.org!mania.hotb.sub.org!mania!lkv
- From: lkv@mania.hotb.sub.org (Lutz Vieweg)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48
- Subject: Re: unpostable sex48pos
- Message-ID: <paQyr*BN1@mania.hotb.sub.org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 11:16:25 GMT
- References: <9208171437.AA03964@is1.vub.ac.be> <1992Aug19.121407.2793@ryn.mro4.
- <2a9283af.1591.9comp.sys.hp48.1@hpcvbbs.cv.hp.com> <d-#ngcm.payner@netcom.com>
- <1992Aug20.131514.15153@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
- Organization: The Funny Farm
- X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 alpha rel3
- Lines: 80
-
- In article <1992Aug20.131514.15153@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, Joseph James Ervin writes:
-
- > Incidentally, it sounds to me like RFU could use some better
- > argument checking.
- >
- > Lutz, if you're still reading this group do you think we could
- > work to change this from a bloodbath into something constructive?
-
- Well, of course I'm still reading this newsgroup, though my time
- is just too expensive to me that I'd like to waste it for following-up
- non-constructive flames. And my kill-file prevents me from reading
- most of that shit.
-
- As far as I've seen there's a frustrated guy who tells everyone
- my QED and RFU were crashing. The only things I can say about this:
-
- - There are 422 registered users of QED (V1.07) around the world. Today,
- number 423 will be distributed. I haven't received such a 'crash'-report
- from any of them. I'm using QED by myself nearly every day. There
- was no crash, either.
-
- I never received any mail from that thing called
- mgn00@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com. And it seems I haven't missed something.
-
- - RFU did not crash on my calculator also, and it's source is in
- the public domain, so anyone who has problems with it is invited
- to either fix it by himself or to send me a bug-report.
-
- So please, if you tell me that RFU needs some better argument
- checking, give me more details. Which program crashed on your
- calculator (RFU or RFP?) and under which circumstances?
-
- This is what RFU does to check whether the object on the stack
- is a valid RF-Archive:
-
-
- main
- textr "HPHP48-E"
-
- rpl Type_pgm
-
- rpl Need_1_arg
-
- rpl $02dcc
- pgmbeg
- rpl pgmend-pgmbeg
-
- jsr save_regs
-
- jsr gc ; garbage collection
-
- jsr restore_regs
-
- move.a (d1),c
- move.a c,d1
- move.a (d1),a
- move.a #$02a2c,c ; String ?
- bne.a a,c,.2o
-
- add.a #5,d1
- move.a (d1),a
- move.a #5+5+5,c
- blt.a a,c,.2o ; long enough?
-
- add.a #5,d1
- move.a (d1),a
- move.a #$24652,c ; !v
- beq.a a,c,.2n ; RF-Object ?
- .2o
- bra bad_arg_error
- .2n
-
- cu, Lutz Vieweg
-
- PS: If you follow-up on this article and want me to read it, please
- send me a copy via mail.
-
- PPS: People sometimes seem to forget that 'Free Software' also means
- they are free not to use it.
-
-