How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?

This is stupid.

On 2007-01-05, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did some moron or other uninspired person document the code?

You got it backwards. No moron or uninspired person would never
have reverse-engineered and documented the code.

In reality there are probably two or more independent disassemblies.
But that is easy compared to making the code compile again
into an identical result (resourcing), which some have done.

> Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the original authors of the code
> to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?

It is very hard, because most of the authors have nothing to
do with the Commodore scene anymore. Also, for example
Bill Gates has better things to do than to document 30 years
old code.

Besides, do YOU remember the reason for every line of code you
have written in your life? I don't. I have to rely on the
comments on the source code, and it they are missing, I have
to reverse-engineer my own code.

This was a big stumbling block when the tape routines were
adapted at Commodore. Back then the original author was
available (as a contractor), but still they had to reverse-
engineer the code and they commented it that way.

> This is stupid.

Your view of the world seems to be.

-Pasi
-- 
/Nynaeve had started snoring softly, a habit she denied even more
 heatedly than she did flinging her elbows about./
	-- Elayne in The Wheel of Time:"The Shadow Rising"

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> 
> This is stupid.
> 

Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly 
impossible.


marco

marco <marco@no.spam> wrote:

>> This is stupid.
> Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly
> impossible.

LMAO

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
Reality-ometer:  [\........]  Hmmph!  Thought so...

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

STFU N00B

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
ALITALIA: Always Late In Takeoff,Always Late In Arrival

Pasi Ojala wrote:
> On 2007-01-05, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did some moron or other uninspired person document the code?
>
> You got it backwards. No moron or uninspired person would never
> have reverse-engineered and documented the code.
>
> In reality there are probably two or more independent disassemblies.
> But that is easy compared to making the code compile again
> into an identical result (resourcing), which some have done.
>
> > Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the original authors of the code
> > to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
>
> It is very hard, because most of the authors have nothing to
> do with the Commodore scene anymore. Also, for example
> Bill Gates has better things to do than to document 30 years
> old code.
>
> Besides, do YOU remember the reason for every line of code you
> have written in your life? I don't. I have to rely on the
> comments on the source code, and it they are missing, I have
> to reverse-engineer my own code.
>
> This was a big stumbling block when the tape routines were
> adapted at Commodore. Back then the original author was
> available (as a contractor), but still they had to reverse-
> engineer the code and they commented it that way.
>
> > This is stupid.
>
> Your view of the world seems to be.
>
> -Pasi
> --
> /Nynaeve had started snoring softly, a habit she denied even more
>  heatedly than she did flinging her elbows about./
> 	-- Elayne in The Wheel of Time:"The Shadow Rising"

Come now....after 30 years, NOBODY can document the firmware without
tons of '?'s and lots of blank lines and useless comments?  If I put my
mind to it, even after 30 years, I could write a book on the Commodore
code.....6502 is pretty easy, after all compared to the INTEL 'monster'
processors they have now.

marco wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> >
> > This is stupid.
> >
>
> Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly
> impossible.
>
>
> marco

Anytime, anywhere Marco........I can offer you 6502 code spiffed up to
look like a well-dressed christmas tree if you want.....just let me
know.

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> STFU N00B
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> ALITALIA: Always Late In Takeoff,Always Late In Arrival

Why thank you IAN.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
>
> This is stupid.

Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.   You want
to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I have
made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.

6502 is a BABY

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.   You want
> to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I have

You're the one who started with the flaming language.

> made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> 6502 is a BABY

So why don't you comment it? In *my* sleep? Tomorrow morning, dude, or
else shut up.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.

wildstar, drop your cloack

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
And God said: E = 1/2mv^2 - Ze^2/r, and there was light!

a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> > firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.   You want
> > to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I have
>
> You're the one who started with the flaming language.
>

That is silly.....Flaming is directed at SOMEBODY.
I never flamed any person on here.

> > made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> > compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> >
> > 6502 is a BABY
>
> So why don't you comment it? In *my* sleep? Tomorrow morning, dude, or
> else shut up.

Give it a rest......It would take me a while but I think I could do it.
I was just asking a question about why nobody has done it in 30 years.
Why don't you chill a bit dude?

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> > compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> wildstar, drop your cloack
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> And God said: E = 1/2mv^2 - Ze^2/r, and there was light!

What?
You lost me dude.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> >
> > This is stupid.
>
> Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.   You want
> to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I have
> made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> 6502 is a BABY

Why do you say there is no fully commented rom? There are plenty of
them.

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
>
> This is stupid.
>


Most people here are 30+/- about 15 years, so unless you`re prepared to redo, what was done back then for `free`..forget about the
criticizm..and take what you can get while the C64/PET still lives on..Help the community, don`t be a self-righteous-moron..support
it.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.

And you got the reply: because maybe the authors have better things to do 
than comment their own code. You know, something on the line of paying bills 
and living a day by day life, which is hard enough without commenting 
obsolete 6502 code only a handful of people in the world still give two 
shits about.

For your information, those who did the code were probably either 
consultants, contract coders, third parties or simply Commodore people who 
felt they were just doing a job, like a cook bakes a cake or a woodsmith 
crafts a chair; all of them have moved on with their lives and careers, 
expecially since Commodore liquidated. Only a small percentage of them loved 
their work and an even shorted pecentage of that fraction has still any 
interest left in Commodore nowadays.

> You want
> to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I
> have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> 6502 is a BABY

Ok, then prove the world you're such a smart guy and comment what you feel 
that lacks a proper commenting effort. The whole Commodore community will be 
grateful to you for that. If it's that easy, why haven't you done it 
already?

Besides, your "6502 is a BABY" statement is ludicrous. It's based on the 
fact the instructions and the architecture are simpler than those of some 
unnamed Intel CPU 'monster' you talk about. Your logic is terribly flawed 
( ever heard about the whole RISC vs CISC diatribe? ) and seems to miss that 
it doesn't really matter how simple are the instructions of a certain CPU's, 
but what those instructions do, how they are put together, is what it does 
matter, from a coder's perspective. The "?" you find in the comments maybe 
are there just because who did the comment was incapable of understanding 
how that particular instruction fit in a particular code context. But you're 
a smart, clever guy who does it all in his sleep, maybe you should just lend 
a hand, rather than just criticising people's efforts...

Riccardo 

christianlott1 <christianlott1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why do you say there is no fully commented rom? There are plenty of
> them.

Probably he isn't able to google for them

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
* Fatal error : Mac user detected ! IDIOT MODE ON.

christianlott1 wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> > >
> > > This is stupid.
> >
> > Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> > firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.   You want
> > to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I have
> > made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> > compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> >
> > 6502 is a BABY
>
> Why do you say there is no fully commented rom? There are plenty of
> them.

Well, I have not found them.
They either have lots of '?'s or useless comments like
LDA #$09 ; Load nine into accumulator......
stuff like that.

Commented Roms where the comments are descriptive and invasive.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I have not found them.

see?

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
We want *you* removed from the web

Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hey guys, I expected this would turn into a discussion of WHY the
> > firmware is pretty terribly commented even after 30 years.
>
> And you got the reply: because maybe the authors have better things to do
> than comment their own code. You know, something on the line of paying bills
> and living a day by day life, which is hard enough without commenting
> obsolete 6502 code only a handful of people in the world still give two
> shits about.
>
> For your information, those who did the code were probably either
> consultants, contract coders, third parties or simply Commodore people who
> felt they were just doing a job, like a cook bakes a cake or a woodsmith
> crafts a chair; all of them have moved on with their lives and careers,
> expecially since Commodore liquidated. Only a small percentage of them loved
> their work and an even shorted pecentage of that fraction has still any
> interest left in Commodore nowadays.

Yes, but that leaves 30 years for maybe a pool of 10 million people to
comment the ROMs.
It does not have to be 'Commodore People'

>
> > You want
> > to turn this into a flame-fest, that is your choice, but I think I
> > have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> > compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> >
> > 6502 is a BABY
>
> Ok, then prove the world you're such a smart guy and comment what you feel
> that lacks a proper commenting effort. The whole Commodore community will be
> grateful to you for that. If it's that easy, why haven't you done it
> already?

Geez guys, STOP being so defensive about all of this.
I was merely asking a question, albeit an emotional one, but no need to
be so defensive.
And the 6502 IS a baby compared to the INTEL 'monsters' they have
nowadays, that is NO comment on me or my abilities.  And my question is
still un-answered.... :)

>
> Besides, your "6502 is a BABY" statement is ludicrous. It's based on the
> fact the instructions and the architecture are simpler than those of some
> unnamed Intel CPU 'monster' you talk about.

The 6502 is a simple, basic microprocessor compared to the INTEL 80x86,
the Motorola 68000 series or the Z8000, etc.   It is not ludicrous, why
do you say that?

> Your logic is terribly flawed
> ( ever heard about the whole RISC vs CISC diatribe? )

No, I have not...care to enlighten me? :)

> and seems to miss that
> it doesn't really matter how simple are the instructions of a certain CPU's,
> but what those instructions do, how they are put together, is what it does
> matter, from a coder's perspective. The "?" you find in the comments maybe
> are there just because who did the comment was incapable of understanding
> how that particular instruction fit in a particular code context. But you're
> a smart, clever guy who does it all in his sleep, maybe you should just lend
> a hand, rather than just criticising people's efforts...

I was criticising peoples LACK of effort.   No need to take this so
personally.  The code is NOT commented well and has a lot of '?'s.
That is an observation.  If you want to get all worked-up about it that
is your choice, I was simply asking a question.  And NO, I was not
bragging explicitly.

> 
> Riccardo

user wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> >
> > This is stupid.
> >
>
>
> Most people here are 30+/- about 15 years, so unless you`re prepared to redo, what was done back then for `free`..forget about the
> criticizm..and take what you can get while the C64/PET still lives on..Help the community, don`t be a self-righteous-moron..support
> it.

I was commenting on the code and expressing my frustration.  If you
want to flame me for that, I think that reflects more on you than it
does on me.   Chill dude :)

iAN CooG wrote:
> christianlott1 <christianlott1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you say there is no fully commented rom? There are plenty of
> > them.
>
> Probably he isn't able to google for them
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> * Fatal error : Mac user detected ! IDIOT MODE ON.

No, I have looked far and wide for these source code commented
roms...haven't been able to find them.....do you know where they exist?

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Well, I have not found them.
>
> see?
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> We want *you* removed from the web

The GOOD commented ones....I have found PLENTY of low-level commented
firmware.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> No, I have looked far and wide for these source code commented
> roms...haven't been able to find them.....do you know where they
> exist?

http://www.the-dreams.de/aay.html

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
My other computer is a Commodore 64.

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1168013364.819270.316900@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> user wrote:
> > <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> > >
> > > This is stupid.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Most people here are 30+/- about 15 years, so unless you`re prepared to redo, what was done back then for `free`..forget about
the
> > criticizm..and take what you can get while the C64/PET still lives on..Help the community, don`t be a
self-righteous-moron..support
> > it.
>
> I was commenting on the code and expressing my frustration.  If you
> want to flame me for that, I think that reflects more on you than it
> does on me.   Chill dude :)
>

Take the frustration out on the code that you`re criticising, not us!

Chill camels` balls :)

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> The GOOD commented ones....I have found PLENTY of low-level commented
> firmware.

Do it yourself and show us how good you are.
/me shrugs

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
File Not Found. Backup Not Found. Sure you don't want a drink?

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
[bad quote omitted]

Ah, just to be tedious, learn to quote properly. Snip the irrilevant part
you're not replying to, including the signature (that is after the "-- "
mark.

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
I'm not a complete idiot... Several parts are missing!

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The GOOD commented ones....I have found PLENTY of low-level commented
> > firmware.
>
> Do it yourself and show us how good you are.
> /me shrugs
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> File Not Found. Backup Not Found. Sure you don't want a drink?

You NUTS?
That would take me MONTHS

user wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1168013364.819270.316900@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > user wrote:
> > > <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > > > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > > > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > > > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > > > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > > > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> > > >
> > > > This is stupid.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Most people here are 30+/- about 15 years, so unless you`re prepared to redo, what was done back then for `free`..forget about
> the
> > > criticizm..and take what you can get while the C64/PET still lives on..Help the community, don`t be a
> self-righteous-moron..support
> > > it.
> >
> > I was commenting on the code and expressing my frustration.  If you
> > want to flame me for that, I think that reflects more on you than it
> > does on me.   Chill dude :)
> >
>
> Take the frustration out on the code that you`re criticising, not us!
>
> Chill camels` balls :)

I was not addressing anyone in particular......don't be so defensive :)

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1168014047.739462.89460@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> user wrote:
> > <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1168013364.819270.316900@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > user wrote:
> > > > <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> > > > > dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> > > > > uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> > > > > original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> > > > > FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is stupid.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Most people here are 30+/- about 15 years, so unless you`re prepared to redo, what was done back then for `free`..forget
about
> > the
> > > > criticizm..and take what you can get while the C64/PET still lives on..Help the community, don`t be a
> > self-righteous-moron..support
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > I was commenting on the code and expressing my frustration.  If you
> > > want to flame me for that, I think that reflects more on you than it
> > > does on me.   Chill dude :)
> > >
> >
> > Take the frustration out on the code that you`re criticising, not us!
> >
> > Chill camels` balls :)
>
> I was not addressing anyone in particular......don't be so defensive :)
>

I`m laughing my ass off.

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > No, I have looked far and wide for these source code commented
> > roms...haven't been able to find them.....do you know where they
> > exist?
>
> http://www.the-dreams.de/aay.html
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> My other computer is a Commodore 64.

Thanks IAN, but that is the 1541....I was looking for firmware and
kernal for PETs or C64

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

>> http://www.the-dreams.de/aay.html

> Thanks IAN, but that is the 1541....I was looking for firmware and
> kernal for PETs or C64

OMFG! Look better... seems that beetween us YOU are the nut... sheesh

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
without words

user wrote:
> I`m laughing my ass off.

Glad I can entertain you.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> You NUTS?
> That would take me MONTHS

who cares, it's a baby or not?!
start now or STFU once for all.

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
Errare Pentium est, perseverare est Microsoft !!!

user <noemail.com> wrote:

> I`m laughing my ass off.

Agreed. While you're at it, take the time to learn to quote, thanks.

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-

"iAN CooG" <iancoog@despammed.com> wrote in message news:i0vnh.99557$uv5.1298555@twister1.libero.it...
> user <noemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I`m laughing my ass off.
>
> Agreed. While you're at it, take the time to learn to quote, thanks.
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
>
>

Why fsck you for the trouble!
Quotes,..stuff ya quotes...didn`t ya get layed tonight? Boner! :)

user <noemail.com> wrote:

> Why fsck you for the trouble!
> Quotes,..stuff ya quotes...didn`t ya get layed tonight? Boner! :)

oh, ferk off :D

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
Bad FAT? My hard disk has high cholesterol?

"iAN CooG" <iancoog@despammed.com> wrote in message news:Ldvnh.100679$Fk1.552730@twister2.libero.it...
> user <noemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why fsck you for the trouble!
> > Quotes,..stuff ya quotes...didn`t ya get layed tonight? Boner! :)
>
> oh, ferk off :D
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> Bad FAT? My hard disk has high cholesterol?
>
>

Why Fark U :)

In article <1168009591.848700.251620@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
 Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
|> I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
|> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
|> 
|> 6502 is a BABY

Yeah, sure.

You're of course aware that it's harder to disassemble code of simple and
slow machines, cause

- you need to formulate stuff very minimalistic, having pretty much maximum
  distance to the original abstract algorithmic representation, and

- you tend to use nifty tricks and hacks to spare a cycle here or there which
  are usually *not* obvious, even to experienced programmers.

Besides, when it comes to the instruction set, the "monster" processors of
today don't differ that much from the past. Sure, you had some additions 
for supporting floating point math, packed datatypes, and such, but it's
not like vintage 8086 code would be any more readable or unreadable than 
current IA32-code.

Rainer

Rainer Buchty wrote:
> In article <1168009591.848700.251620@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>  Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
> |> I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> |> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> |> 
> |> 6502 is a BABY
> 
> Yeah, sure.
> 
> You're of course aware that it's harder to disassemble code of simple and
> slow machines, cause
> 
> - you need to formulate stuff very minimalistic, having pretty much maximum
>   distance to the original abstract algorithmic representation, and
> 
> - you tend to use nifty tricks and hacks to spare a cycle here or there which
>   are usually *not* obvious, even to experienced programmers.

A nice example is doing a multiply. On the INTEL 'monster' processor 
that would translate into an easy to recognize MUL, IMUL or FMUL 
instruction. On the 6502 that would involve several add, shift and 
branching instructions. I would be impressed if some one could identify 
  code to multiply two numbers and tell it if it is signed, unsigned or 
floating point within 10 seconds from uncommented 6502 code.

> Besides, when it comes to the instruction set, the "monster" processors of
> today don't differ that much from the past. Sure, you had some additions 
> for supporting floating point math, packed datatypes, and such, but it's
> not like vintage 8086 code would be any more readable or unreadable than 
> current IA32-code.

Agree, once you know how to program on the 6502, learning to program 
another processor is easy.

iAN CooG wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> http://www.the-dreams.de/aay.html
>
> > Thanks IAN, but that is the 1541....I was looking for firmware and
> > kernal for PETs or C64
>
> OMFG! Look better... seems that beetween us YOU are the nut... sheesh
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> without words

K.....I am checking it out.....
and that ROM listing still has useless comments......
NOT at all descriptive.

DESCRIPTIVE Rom listings are not....

LDA $CB ; load tape timing constant

THAT is useless, all I have to do is check a memory map to find that
out.....it is NOT descriptive.

But DESCRIPTIVE and CONTEXTUAL such as

LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......

Something like that, not something I just have to look up on a memory
map to find out...That is useless commenting and is better left empty...

Rainer Buchty wrote:
> In article <1168009591.848700.251620@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>  Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
> |> I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> |> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> |>
> |> 6502 is a BABY
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> You're of course aware that it's harder to disassemble code of simple and
> slow machines, cause
>
> - you need to formulate stuff very minimalistic, having pretty much maximum
>   distance to the original abstract algorithmic representation, and
>
> - you tend to use nifty tricks and hacks to spare a cycle here or there which
>   are usually *not* obvious, even to experienced programmers.
>
> Besides, when it comes to the instruction set, the "monster" processors of
> today don't differ that much from the past. Sure, you had some additions
> for supporting floating point math, packed datatypes, and such, but it's
> not like vintage 8086 code would be any more readable or unreadable than
> current IA32-code.
>
> Rainer

Well, I disagree with this.   With a basic knowledge of the hardware
and firmware, 6502 disassembly is, IMO, MUCH easier than 32 and 64-bit
INTEL procs with their many addressing modes, fetch-ahead, caching,
etc. etc.

In article <1168026327.402675.242040@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
|> Well, I disagree with this.   With a basic knowledge of the hardware
|> and firmware, 6502 disassembly is, IMO, MUCH easier than 32 and 64-bit
|> INTEL procs with their many addressing modes, fetch-ahead, caching,
|> etc. etc.

Like to compare apples with oranges again? Caching is transparent to the
programmer -- as it was supposed to.

The addressing modes don't add much obfuscation, on the contrary, they
usually make things easier as you can do stuff like "add this offset scaled by 
a factor of 1/2/4 to the following base" at once rather than breaking it
up into a series of single instructions.

No idea what *firmware* you are talking about. We were talking about assembly
language, not OS programming...

Rainer

Rainer Buchty wrote:
> In article <1168026327.402675.242040@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
> |> Well, I disagree with this.   With a basic knowledge of the hardware
> |> and firmware, 6502 disassembly is, IMO, MUCH easier than 32 and 64-bit
> |> INTEL procs with their many addressing modes, fetch-ahead, caching,
> |> etc. etc.
>
> Like to compare apples with oranges again? Caching is transparent to the
> programmer -- as it was supposed to.
>
> The addressing modes don't add much obfuscation, on the contrary, they
> usually make things easier as you can do stuff like "add this offset scaled by
> a factor of 1/2/4 to the following base" at once rather than breaking it
> up into a series of single instructions.
>
> No idea what *firmware* you are talking about. We were talking about assembly
> language, not OS programming...
>
> Rainer

It is not apples and oranges.
Which of two scenarios would you find easiest?

1) Programming a 6502 on a piece of hardware that you were familiar
with and the firmware that you were familiar with.....you have to write
a utility.

2) Programming a 64-bit INTEL 80x86 4GHz processor on an IBM....writing
a utility in ASSEMBLY with no C+ or any compiled stuff.

Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....it was EASY for me.
I have looked at the optimization processes and Technical data sheets
for the Newer INTEL processors, and although the 'skeleton' is
obviously an outgrowth of the old 8086 processor, they are VERY
complicated beasts to work with in assembly.   Why do you think we have
C+ and compiled stuff?

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> But DESCRIPTIVE and CONTEXTUAL such as
>
> LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
> one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
> complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
> next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......
>
> Something like that, not something I just have to look up on a memory
> map to find out...That is useless commenting and is better left empty...

I wouldn't say that disassembly is useless at all. It's a commented
disassembly, not a dissertation.

Anyway, haven't you heard of Toolkit Kernal and Toolkit Basic by Dan
Heeb?

Though I got mine cheaper, $23 isn't a bad price:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0942386337/ref=dp_olp_1/002-0665965-7989643

If you have doubts about how thorough it is check:

http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/RS232Toolkit.php

and

http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/serialio.php

I OCR'd the last one (serial) but it's not hosted yet. I'll send a copy
to whoever wants one though.

christianlott1 wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > But DESCRIPTIVE and CONTEXTUAL such as
> >
> > LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
> > one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
> > complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
> > next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......
> >
> > Something like that, not something I just have to look up on a memory
> > map to find out...That is useless commenting and is better left empty...
>
> I wouldn't say that disassembly is useless at all. It's a commented
> disassembly, not a dissertation.
>
> Anyway, haven't you heard of Toolkit Kernal and Toolkit Basic by Dan
> Heeb?
>
> Though I got mine cheaper, $23 isn't a bad price:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0942386337/ref=dp_olp_1/002-0665965-7989643
>
> If you have doubts about how thorough it is check:
>
> http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/RS232Toolkit.php
>
> and
>
> http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/serialio.php
>
> I OCR'd the last one (serial) but it's not hosted yet. I'll send a copy
> to whoever wants one though.

Thanks....sorry to be lazy here, but can you give me a synopsis on what
these tools are and what they are about?

Thanks

Gil

iAN CooG wrote:

> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
>> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> wildstar, drop your cloack

Zing!

Okay, you made me giggle. That's all I'm saying.

-- 
Golan Klinger 
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> It is not apples and oranges.
> Which of two scenarios would you find easiest?
> 
> 1) Programming a 6502 on a piece of hardware that you were familiar
> with and the firmware that you were familiar with.....you have to write
> a utility.
> 
> 2) Programming a 64-bit INTEL 80x86 4GHz processor on an IBM....writing
> a utility in ASSEMBLY with no C+ or any compiled stuff.

The latter. Though in the real world people use only assembly when they 
really have to because for the vast majority of applications there are 
more productive ways to get the job done.

The fact that you are don't know how to code for the x86 doesn't make it 
necessarily harder (in general). I learned machine code on the 6502, 
which helped me to move on to 68000, MIPS, AVR and x86 processors and 
appreciate their richer instruction set.

> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....it was EASY for me.

So did I (on the PET with the build-in monitor). But calculating branch 
offsets by hand was a bitch. But if you have a decent assembler there is 
no need to code in hex. But if you do I admit the instruction encoding 
of the 6502 simpler; it is easier to decipher 6502 program from an hex 
dump than a x86 program.

> I have looked at the optimization processes and Technical data sheets
> for the Newer INTEL processors, and although the 'skeleton' is
> obviously an outgrowth of the old 8086 processor, they are VERY
> complicated beasts to work with in assembly.

Things I can do on those processors with a single instruction, would 
require a hell of a lot of hard to understand code on the 6502.

> Why do you think we have
> C+ and compiled stuff?

Because these days programmer time is more valuable than processor time. 
Also software has become a lot more complex, therefore the need for high 
productivity tools has grown. Another factor is that compilers have 
become much better, the difference between the efficiency of handcrafted 
assembly and compiler generated code has become much smaller and in some 
cases is non-existent. The compilers have not only become more clever 
but also modern CPU's are more suitable for compiled languages than the 
6502 (which was notoriously bad in that respect). And last but not least 
program written in a high level language can be more easily ported to 
another processor architecture.

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It is not apples and oranges.
> > Which of two scenarios would you find easiest?
> >
> > 1) Programming a 6502 on a piece of hardware that you were familiar
> > with and the firmware that you were familiar with.....you have to write
> > a utility.
> >
> > 2) Programming a 64-bit INTEL 80x86 4GHz processor on an IBM....writing
> > a utility in ASSEMBLY with no C+ or any compiled stuff.
>
> The latter. Though in the real world people use only assembly when they
> really have to because for the vast majority of applications there are
> more productive ways to get the job done.
>
> The fact that you are don't know how to code for the x86 doesn't make it
> necessarily harder (in general). I learned machine code on the 6502,
> which helped me to move on to 68000, MIPS, AVR and x86 processors and
> appreciate their richer instruction set.
>
> > Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....it was EASY for me.
>
> So did I (on the PET with the build-in monitor). But calculating branch
> offsets by hand was a bitch. But if you have a decent assembler there is
> no need to code in hex. But if you do I admit the instruction encoding
> of the 6502 simpler; it is easier to decipher 6502 program from an hex
> dump than a x86 program.
>
> > I have looked at the optimization processes and Technical data sheets
> > for the Newer INTEL processors, and although the 'skeleton' is
> > obviously an outgrowth of the old 8086 processor, they are VERY
> > complicated beasts to work with in assembly.
>
> Things I can do on those processors with a single instruction, would
> require a hell of a lot of hard to understand code on the 6502.
>
> > Why do you think we have
> > C+ and compiled stuff?
>
> Because these days programmer time is more valuable than processor time.
> Also software has become a lot more complex, therefore the need for high
> productivity tools has grown. Another factor is that compilers have
> become much better, the difference between the efficiency of handcrafted
> assembly and compiler generated code has become much smaller and in some
> cases is non-existent. The compilers have not only become more clever
> but also modern CPU's are more suitable for compiled languages than the
> 6502 (which was notoriously bad in that respect). And last but not least
> program written in a high level language can be more easily ported to
> another processor architecture.

You have made a lot of good points there.
I think we can agree(?) that it can go either way, and that it is not
simply a matter of one over the other?   But this is an interesting
discussion.

Cheers!

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It is not apples and oranges.
>>> Which of two scenarios would you find easiest?
>>>
>>> 1) Programming a 6502 on a piece of hardware that you were familiar
>>> with and the firmware that you were familiar with.....you have to write
>>> a utility.
>>>
>>> 2) Programming a 64-bit INTEL 80x86 4GHz processor on an IBM....writing
>>> a utility in ASSEMBLY with no C+ or any compiled stuff.
>> The latter. Though in the real world people use only assembly when they
>> really have to because for the vast majority of applications there are
>> more productive ways to get the job done.
>>
>> The fact that you are don't know how to code for the x86 doesn't make it
>> necessarily harder (in general). I learned machine code on the 6502,
>> which helped me to move on to 68000, MIPS, AVR and x86 processors and
>> appreciate their richer instruction set.
>>
>>> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....it was EASY for me.
>> So did I (on the PET with the build-in monitor). But calculating branch
>> offsets by hand was a bitch. But if you have a decent assembler there is
>> no need to code in hex. But if you do I admit the instruction encoding
>> of the 6502 simpler; it is easier to decipher 6502 program from an hex
>> dump than a x86 program.
>>
>>> I have looked at the optimization processes and Technical data sheets
>>> for the Newer INTEL processors, and although the 'skeleton' is
>>> obviously an outgrowth of the old 8086 processor, they are VERY
>>> complicated beasts to work with in assembly.
>> Things I can do on those processors with a single instruction, would
>> require a hell of a lot of hard to understand code on the 6502.
>>
>>> Why do you think we have
>>> C+ and compiled stuff?
>> Because these days programmer time is more valuable than processor time.
>> Also software has become a lot more complex, therefore the need for high
>> productivity tools has grown. Another factor is that compilers have
>> become much better, the difference between the efficiency of handcrafted
>> assembly and compiler generated code has become much smaller and in some
>> cases is non-existent. The compilers have not only become more clever
>> but also modern CPU's are more suitable for compiled languages than the
>> 6502 (which was notoriously bad in that respect). And last but not least
>> program written in a high level language can be more easily ported to
>> another processor architecture.
> 
> You have made a lot of good points there.
> I think we can agree(?) that it can go either way, and that it is not
> simply a matter of one over the other?   But this is an interesting
> discussion.

Professionally I'm glad we have moved on since the seventies, but the 
hobbyist in me still longs for the good old days where you could still 
understand every last bit of your computer and where you had to creative 
rather than relying on brute force to get the job done.

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>
> Professionally I'm glad we have moved on since the seventies, but the
> hobbyist in me still longs for the good old days where you could still
> understand every last bit of your computer and where you had to creative
> rather than relying on brute force to get the job done.

Boy do I second that!!!
:)

Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:

> But DESCRIPTIVE and CONTEXTUAL such as
> 
> LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
> one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
> complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
> next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......

One question: What do you need the commented disassembly for?

What you describe above is more like a detailed run-down for each line
of code than a simple commented disassembly, like someone would write
an academic/magazine article on the C64 KERNAL and have to explain
parts of it in great detail. Not even then, you would describe every
single instruction but rather pinpoint the important details.

If you are such a wizard on 6502 and the systems using it, you probably
can figure out all the above from the existing, simple disassembly. All
the others of us are satisfied with that, because we use our brains in
combination with the occasional comments in the disassembly to figure
out exactly what and how the code works.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

Anders Carlsson wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
>
> > But DESCRIPTIVE and CONTEXTUAL such as
> >
> > LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
> > one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
> > complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
> > next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......
>
> One question: What do you need the commented disassembly for?
>
> What you describe above is more like a detailed run-down for each line
> of code than a simple commented disassembly, like someone would write
> an academic/magazine article on the C64 KERNAL and have to explain
> parts of it in great detail. Not even then, you would describe every
> single instruction but rather pinpoint the important details.
>
> If you are such a wizard on 6502 and the systems using it, you probably
> can figure out all the above from the existing, simple disassembly. All
> the others of us are satisfied with that, because we use our brains in
> combination with the occasional comments in the disassembly to figure
> out exactly what and how the code works.
>
> --
> Anders Carlsson

Not necessarily....just maybe something in between
And it WOULD save quite a bit of time decoding some of the more
difficult Kernal routines.
But those half-assed commented disassemblies are really no help in
determining what is actually going on.

Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:

> And it WOULD save quite a bit of time decoding some of the more
> difficult Kernal routines.

Care to give a hint why you need to understand the interior of
the Kernal so well? Are you trying to write smart code that can
make jumps into the middle of routines depending on what you want
to achieve?

Like other people already wrote; if the existing disassembled lists
are not enough for you, why don't you spend a few minutes to make
better descriptions for each fragment of code? You seem already to
invest a lot of time trying to figure out what the code does, so I
assume you already write down some notes for your own use. Show the
rest of us that you are serious and produce an improved disassembly.

Chances are that people will credit and applaud you, at least as
long as the conclusions made in the disassembly are correct. ;-)

-- 
Anders Carlsson

christianlott1 wrote:


> I OCR'd the last one (serial) but it's not hosted yet. I'll send a copy
> to whoever wants one though.

Ah! Sorry about that. The whole family visiting and Xmas thing officially
finished a couple of hours ago. I have more time now. I'll hopefully have
it up within the hour.

-- 
-----> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/index.html <-----
=====       It's not pretty, it's not great, but it is mine.       =====

"marco" <marco@no.spam> wrote in message 
news:12psjnv3mrp2527@news.supernews.com...
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
>> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
>> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
>> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
>> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
>>
>> This is stupid.
>>
>
> Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly 
> impossible.
>

Good call.

In article <1168027838.842536.248400@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
|> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....

Really. Any volunteer for base-23 hex!?

|> Why do you think we have C+ and compiled stuff?

Because it's easier, especially with respect to ever growing software
projects.

Not because the processors grew that complicated.

Rainer (EOD)

"iAN CooG" <iancoog@despammed.com> wrote in message 
news:k9unh.100519$Fk1.552348@twister2.libero.it...
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> have made a good inquiry.   I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
>> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
>
> wildstar, drop your cloack
>

He he, funny :-) 

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1167980416.774289.227760@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?

People were waiting for you to do it.

 Did some moron or other
> uninspired person document the code?

Some hacks had a go whilst they were waiting for the brilliant but 
uninspired code messiah (you) to do it properly.

  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?

They presumably have no interest in doing it because they could never do it 
as well as the coding messiah could.

> This is stupid.
>

Now that you are here, start documenting...

Rainer Buchty <buchty@atbode100.lrr.in.tum.de> wrote:
>>> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....
>
> Really. Any volunteer for base-23 hex!?

LOL

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
"A n00b immersed in a newsgroup receives a up thrust force
equal to the volume of bullshits that he writes on it."

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes, but that leaves 30 years for maybe a pool of 10 million people to
> comment the ROMs.
> It does not have to be 'Commodore People'

I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs. 
Unfortunately, that's really NOT the case. Where does these 10 million 
people come from anyway, is it from some statistics, just from beneath your 
hat or, more probably, straight out of your ass?

> Geez guys, STOP being so defensive about all of this.
> I was merely asking a question, albeit an emotional one, but no need
> to be so defensive.

Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged 
laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I would call 
it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our intelligence to 
read your illogical babble.

> And the 6502 IS a baby compared to the INTEL 'monsters' they have
> nowadays, that is NO comment on me or my abilities.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Excuse me, can you tell me the 
difference between CISC and RISC? Can you tell the essential elements of a 
very simple CPU architecture? What is an ALU, for example? Who is Von 
Neumann?

> my question is still un-answered.... :)


Your question in un-answered, uh? Why are there still "?" in a ROM's 
comment? I will answer that question. We waiting for you. We were all 
waiting for you to fill those "?". Nobody of us had intention to steal your 
glory.

>> Besides, your "6502 is a BABY" statement is ludicrous. It's based on
>> the fact the instructions and the architecture are simpler than
>> those of some unnamed Intel CPU 'monster' you talk about.
>
> The 6502 is a simple, basic microprocessor compared to the INTEL
> 80x86, the Motorola 68000 series or the Z8000, etc.   It is not
> ludicrous, why do you say that?

It's ludicrous because you're savagely comparing Apple to Oranges and, as I 
said, the fact the 6502 has fewer registers than an Intel CPU doesn't make 
its code necessarily simpler at all. Actually, it could be harder to 
understand 6502 code off the hook, and understand what a portion of code is 
aiming at, since the instructions are more bare to the bones, oriented to a 
lower level of the machine rather than an higher one, like on the Intels; 
here you seem to have no knowledge whatsover about the difference between 
microcoded CPUs and circuitry based ones... Odds are you have never, ever 
tried to code a 6502 program too...

>> Your logic is terribly flawed
>> ( ever heard about the whole RISC vs CISC diatribe? )
>
> No, I have not...care to enlighten me? :)

Have you ever heard of RTFM? It's the acronym of Read The Fucking Manual. 
I'd say, RTFU either STFU. I leave you the pleasure of finding out what STFU 
stands for, as a weekend homework. It looks like you've got too much times 
on your hands anyway.

> I was criticising peoples LACK of effort.   No need to take this so
> personally.  The code is NOT commented well and has a lot of '?'s.
> That is an observation.  If you want to get all worked-up about it
> that is your choice, I was simply asking a question.  And NO, I was
> not bragging explicitly.

You can't criticise people's lack of involvement in such projects because 
people in this community don't owe you anything. You can complain with 
employees, but here nobody gets paid and you employ no one.

Who do you think you are, the Princess of Saba? A community is a joint 
effort of cultural growth. Either lend a hand, enjoy what people have to 
offer you, or leave. This attitude of yours is moronic to say the least. 
Rather than talking about ROM Kernel dumps, this moronic activity of yours 
already filled most of us with the urge to _take_ a dump.

Riccardo

"Riccardo Rubini" <rubini@despammed.com> writes:

>> Yes, but that leaves 30 years for maybe a pool of 10 million people
>> to comment the ROMs. It does not have to be 'Commodore People'
> I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs.

Perhaps at one point in time, or counting everyone since 25 years
ago, there has been 10 million people who understood enough 6502
machine code to figure out what each individual instruction does,
roughly. I realize this figure may be a bit optimistic, maybe it
is more like one million people if even that.

From understanding each instruction, it is quite a big step to
understand how they operate together and the flow of a large program.
Even fewer would have any interest in disassembling the ROMs instead
of writing your own programs. Maybe over time some 5000 people remain
who both were capable and interested in disassembling the ROMs. Of
those, maybe 1/5 or 1/10 would remain to document it in a digital
form. All those figures still feel a bit optimistic, but it is better
to be optimists than the other way around.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

Rainer Buchty wrote:

> In article <1168027838.842536.248400@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:
> |> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....

Yeah? I've worked with hex and assembler on x86, 6502, Z80, MIPS RISC,
PIC14, AVR, a few VMs, and an emulator that I wrote as a test of a minimal
usable architecture.
The smaller programs and patches to other I found easier just to write down
on paper in hex.
I also hand disassembled the HEX for a ps1 'chip' on paper so I could port
it to a different uC. They used code that broke disassemblers.

I can tell you for example that MIPS RISC is a very simple and well laid out
architecture but a horror to code 'real' programs on because of the sheer
amount of typing needed to do something simple.
This same reason makes them a lot harder to understand.
As opposed to the CISC CPUs, like x86, and VAX. A couple of instructions
does the work of tens or hundreds of RISC instructions.
Sure the boilerplate instructions are slightly less versatile, but given
that they are all performed internal to the CPU without extra reads and
writes to RAM, the lack of versatility is outweighed by the speed gain and
the extra instructions made available for use.




> 
> Really. Any volunteer for base-23 hex!?

O_o hehehe. Holy redundancy batman that redundancy sure is redundant.

Ummm.. dodecaternary? And I thought doing linear algebra in base 7 was bad!

> 
> |> Why do you think we have C+ and compiled stuff?
> 
> Because it's easier, especially with respect to ever growing software
> projects.

Exactly.
Imagine writing a monster like 'The Sims' for example using assembler. No
thankyou!
Projects like that can have hundreds of files and millions of lines of C.
Anyway modern optimising compilers are pretty good at what they do.

> 
> Not because the processors grew that complicated.

The more complex a processor the simpler the programming usually. See above.
-- 
-----> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/index.html <-----
=====       It's not pretty, it's not great, but it is mine.       =====

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> Anytime, anywhere Marco........I can offer you 6502 code spiffed up to
> look like a well-dressed christmas tree if you want.....just let me
> know.

> I could comment anything 6502 in my sleep
> compared to the INTEL 'monster' processors they have nowadays.
> 
> 6502 is a BABY

> Look, I used to HAND-CODE base-16 hex.....it was EASY for me.

So, when do we get to see some of your code?

-- 
Glenn Holmer (Q-Link: ShadowM)
http://www.lyonlabs.org/commodore/c64.html

Clockmeister wrote:
> "marco" <marco@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:12psjnv3mrp2527@news.supernews.com...
> > Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> >> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> >> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> >> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the
> >> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> >> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> >>
> >> This is stupid.
> >>
> >
> > Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly
> > impossible.
> >
>
> Good call.

Clockmeister take a flying leap you illogical, gossipping, moron.

Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, but that leaves 30 years for maybe a pool of 10 million people to
> > comment the ROMs.
> > It does not have to be 'Commodore People'
>
> I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs.
> Unfortunately, that's really NOT the case. Where does these 10 million
> people come from anyway, is it from some statistics, just from beneath your
> hat or, more probably, straight out of your ass?

Just  a guess considering there were 17 million C64s sold.
Now why do you happen to be such a tightwad?

>
> > Geez guys, STOP being so defensive about all of this.
> > I was merely asking a question, albeit an emotional one, but no need
> > to be so defensive.
>
> Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged
> laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I would call
> it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our intelligence to
> read your illogical babble.

Take a flying leap.   I already said what I meant.
If you want to change it to something else just so you can flame me,
then go screw yourself.


>
> > And the 6502 IS a baby compared to the INTEL 'monsters' they have
> > nowadays, that is NO comment on me or my abilities.
>
> You have no clue what you're talking about. Excuse me, can you tell me the
> difference between CISC and RISC? Can you tell the essential elements of a
> very simple CPU architecture? What is an ALU, for example? Who is Von
> Neumann?

Give it a rest ok?
Von-neuman bottleneck anyone?
I know what I meant, but since you appear to be in the MIND-READING
category I no longer need to explain myself, yes?


>
> > my question is still un-answered.... :)
>
>
> Your question in un-answered, uh? Why are there still "?" in a ROM's
> comment? I will answer that question. We waiting for you. We were all
> waiting for you to fill those "?". Nobody of us had intention to steal your
> glory.
>
> >> Besides, your "6502 is a BABY" statement is ludicrous. It's based on
> >> the fact the instructions and the architecture are simpler than
> >> those of some unnamed Intel CPU 'monster' you talk about.
> >
> > The 6502 is a simple, basic microprocessor compared to the INTEL
> > 80x86, the Motorola 68000 series or the Z8000, etc.   It is not
> > ludicrous, why do you say that?
>
> It's ludicrous because you're savagely comparing Apple to Oranges and, as I
> said, the fact the 6502 has fewer registers than an Intel CPU doesn't make
> its code necessarily simpler at all. Actually, it could be harder to
> understand 6502 code off the hook, and understand what a portion of code is
> aiming at, since the instructions are more bare to the bones, oriented to a
> lower level of the machine rather than an higher one, like on the Intels;
> here you seem to have no knowledge whatsover about the difference between
> microcoded CPUs and circuitry based ones... Odds are you have never, ever
> tried to code a 6502 program too...

You are reaching for insults.  I disagree with you and have good reason
to.
Your implications are illogical.   I have coded 6502 for many years.

>
> >> Your logic is terribly flawed
> >> ( ever heard about the whole RISC vs CISC diatribe? )
> >
> > No, I have not...care to enlighten me? :)
>
> Have you ever heard of RTFM? It's the acronym of Read The Fucking Manual.
> I'd say, RTFU either STFU. I leave you the pleasure of finding out what STFU
> stands for, as a weekend homework. It looks like you've got too much times
> on your hands anyway.
>
> > I was criticising peoples LACK of effort.   No need to take this so
> > personally.  The code is NOT commented well and has a lot of '?'s.
> > That is an observation.  If you want to get all worked-up about it
> > that is your choice, I was simply asking a question.  And NO, I was
> > not bragging explicitly.
>
> You can't criticise people's lack of involvement in such projects because
> people in this community don't owe you anything. You can complain with
> employees, but here nobody gets paid and you employ no one.
>
> Who do you think you are, the Princess of Saba? A community is a joint
> effort of cultural growth. Either lend a hand, enjoy what people have to
> offer you, or leave. This attitude of yours is moronic to say the least.
> Rather than talking about ROM Kernel dumps, this moronic activity of yours
> already filled most of us with the urge to _take_ a dump.
>
> Riccardo

Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone in
particular.
Your attempts to inflame the situation is immature to say the least.
Stop trying to pick a fight with me and grow up alright?

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1168050233.748724.292800@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "marco" <marco@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:12psjnv3mrp2527@news.supernews.com...
>> > Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
>> >> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
>> >> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get 
>> >> the
>> >> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for 
>> >> a
>> >> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
>> >>
>> >> This is stupid.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly
>> > impossible.
>> >
>>
>> Good call.
>
> Clockmeister take a flying leap you illogical, gossipping, moron.

Those words can easily be used to describe the hypocrite who started this 
thread.

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1168050592.227867.136110@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> Riccardo Rubini wrote:
>> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>
>> Riccardo
>
> Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone in
> particular.

Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.

Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:

> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.

Not only that, but saying that Marko Makela and Ninja/Dreams are morons that
do not know how to comment kernal disassemblies... time to add another
random signature. ;)

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares? Did some moron or other uninspired
person document the code? Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the original
authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump? This is stupid. (Kimmyland,CSC)

Clockmeister wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168050233.748724.292800@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Clockmeister wrote:
> >> "marco" <marco@no.spam> wrote in message
> >> news:12psjnv3mrp2527@news.supernews.com...
> >> > Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> >> >> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?   Did some moron or other
> >> >> uninspired person document the code?  Geezus, HOW hard is it to get
> >> >> the
> >> >> original authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for
> >> >> a
> >> >> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump?
> >> >>
> >> >> This is stupid.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Look who's talking..  Getting code OR code comments from you is nearly
> >> > impossible.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Good call.
> >
> > Clockmeister take a flying leap you illogical, gossipping, moron.
>
> Those words can easily be used to describe the hypocrite who started this
> thread.

You are full of it Clockmeister.
I have provided code when asked.
You are saying that I haven't as a 'Good Call' is just baiting.
Why don't you contribute something to this thread other than insults
and bull?

Clockmeister wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168050592.227867.136110@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> >> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> Riccardo
> >
> > Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone in
> > particular.
>
> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.

That is your interpretation.   I was not intending that at all.
There was NO malevolence in my query.
You made an assumption and you were mistaken.
At least admit that and apologize.

iAN CooG wrote:
> Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote:
>
> > Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
>
> Not only that, but saying that Marko Makela and Ninja/Dreams are morons that
> do not know how to comment kernal disassemblies... time to add another
> random signature. ;)
>
> --
> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares? Did some moron or other uninspired
> person document the code? Geezus, HOW hard is it to get the original
> authors of the code to pipe in or submit their documents for a
> FULLY-commented, FULLY explained ROM dump? This is stupid. (Kimmyland,CSC)

I said NO such thing.  You are taking my words out of context.
I am saying that the kernal and firmware as not commented well AT ALL.
That is my assertion and I stick by it.
I am willing to discuss it.
My frustration with all the '?' and zero-page comments was indeed
labeled 'moron', but it was not directed at any specific person.....I
was not intending to insult anyone, just express my frustration....I
admit I carried it a bit too far, but the firmware and kernal
documentation IS not very good.

Let's discuss this like adults, now that the insults and flaming are
out of the way?
Thank you

I am no genius.
But I have a lot of experience with Commodore machines and the 6502
and in MY opinion, the firmware and kernal commenting is VERY poor.
I am surprised at the level of commenting and that nobody has done a
great job of commenting it explicitly and verbosely.

I know I am whining, but that is how I feel.
Now you can flame me or you can discuss with me like an adult.

Your choice

Gil

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote ...
>
> Riccardo Rubini wrote:
>>
>> Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged
>> laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I would
>> call
>> it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our intelligence to
>> read your illogical babble.
>
> Take a flying leap.   I already said what I meant.
> If you want to change it to something else just so you can flame me,
> then go screw yourself.

Riccardo might be able to handle the flying leap... but I doubt that he could
pull off that last bit.  I am not an expert on human anatomy, but it seems
like a physical impossibility to me.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote ...
> >
> > Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> >>
> >> Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged
> >> laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I would
> >> call
> >> it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our intelligence to
> >> read your illogical babble.
> >
> > Take a flying leap.   I already said what I meant.
> > If you want to change it to something else just so you can flame me,
> > then go screw yourself.
>
> Riccardo might be able to handle the flying leap... but I doubt that he could
> pull off that last bit.  I am not an expert on human anatomy, but it seems
> like a physical impossibility to me.    ;-)
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Sam Gillett
>
> Change is inevitable,
> except from vending machines!

I suppose so....I am no good at this flaming stuff......
But he does not read me very well and it pisses me off.

Regards,
Gil

http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/files/c64sio_tk.pdf

Dan Heeb beat you to it.

Click a link mr lazy.

christianlott1 wrote:
> http://members.dodo.com.au/~izabellion1/tristan/files/c64sio_tk.pdf
>
> Dan Heeb beat you to it.
> 
> Click a link mr lazy.

THIS looks good :)

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

>> I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs.
>> Unfortunately, that's really NOT the case. Where does these 10
>> million people come from anyway, is it from some statistics, just
>> from beneath your hat or, more probably, straight out of your ass?
>
> Just  a guess considering there were 17 million C64s sold.

Wrong,  The Guinness book of Records estimates there were about 30 MILLION 
units pushed out of Commodore plants. This, however, doesn't change the 
scenario a bit: how many were coders? Too few it seems, to come up with a 
good disassembly that satisfies your huge expectactions...

> Now why do you happen to be such a tightwad?

Me? I am a happy, jolly person. It's just that morons like you definitely 
piss me off. I am also kind of optimistic, indeed I believe you'll simply go 
away as you came in a short time.

>> Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged
>> laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I
>> would call it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our
>> intelligence to read your illogical babble.
>
> Take a flying leap.   I already said what I meant.
> If you want to change it to something else just so you can flame me,
> then go screw yourself.

I didn't change anything. There are a bunch of ROM disassemblies, and the 
names of the ones who did those commented disassemblies are attached to the 
documents. First, you've insulted the people who did that job, for free, 
because apparently their job doesn't match your high standards; secondly, 
you've offended the rest of us, like we're lazy dimwits who can't come up 
with decent assemblies after 30 years. A clever way to win yourself new 
friends, huh? I guess you shouldn't come up with screwing advices, since 
you're the one who's already screwed himself the most.


>> You have no clue what you're talking about. Excuse me, can you tell
>> me the difference between CISC and RISC? Can you tell the essential
>> elements of a very simple CPU architecture? What is an ALU, for
>> example? Who is Von Neumann?
>
> Give it a rest ok?
> Von-neuman bottleneck anyone?

See? You have no clue what you're talking about... The 6502 might be a baby, 
but you just happen to be a _dumb_ baby.

> I know what I meant, but since you appear to be in the MIND-READING
> category I no longer need to explain myself, yes?

In order for me to read your mind, I should first locate it. So far, you 
babbled wildly mindless. Your laughable "6502 is a baby" remark was like 
shooting yourself in the foot. And you already shot the other foot calling 
people names. Looks like you can enroll to the next special Olympics.

>> It's ludicrous because you're savagely comparing Apple to Oranges
>> and, as I said, the fact the 6502 has fewer registers than an Intel
>> CPU doesn't make its code necessarily simpler at all. Actually, it
>> could be harder to understand 6502 code off the hook, and understand
>> what a portion of code is aiming at, since the instructions are more
>> bare to the bones, oriented to a lower level of the machine rather
>> than an higher one, like on the Intels; here you seem to have no
>> knowledge whatsover about the difference between microcoded CPUs and
>> circuitry based ones... Odds are you have never, ever tried to code
>> a 6502 program too...
>
> You are reaching for insults.  I disagree with you and have good
> reason to.

Okay, then please share such wisdom with the rest of the world. This is a 
community of such lazy and dumb people we're all awaiting to learn 
something, master.

> Your implications are illogical.   I have coded 6502 for many years.

Your statement is ludicrous. Where is the proof? Have you also been an 
astronaut during weekends?

> Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone
> in particular.

Wrong. The lazy people who couldn't comment those question marks have names 
and hang out in here. You called them morons, point blank:

"Did some moron or other uninspired person document the code? " ( from your 
original post ).

There are not so many people who did it. Those who did document the code, 
you've insulted them all.

You flat out called Marko Makela a moron, for example. Marko has served this 
community for years and I don't think he's made a penny out of it. Whenever 
I contacted him, he was helpful. A great guy. And he doesn't owe me or 
anybody a thing. He made a commented disassembly, which I found very useful 
when I played with 6502 code. I am definitely not a 6502 guru, but his 
effort has helped me definitely. It's far better than disassemblies I bought 
in the 80's and paid dearly for.

If you want fully commented code, pay some skilled coder such as iAN CooG. 
Either look around and locate the original authors and pay them. Money do 
miracles.

I still believe, and I am not alone, that Marko's and the other guy's 
comments are more than enough for all purposes.

> Your attempts to inflame the situation is immature to say the least.
> Stop trying to pick a fight with me and grow up alright?

I'd like to grow up, I've always like basketball, but being 1.82 m tall, I 
am too short for that. By the way, meanwhile you might try to grow a brain, 
given your midget sized skull doesn't explode because of it :-)

Have fun.

Riccardo

Patrick de Zeester wrote:

> A nice example is doing a multiply. On the INTEL 'monster' processor
> that would translate into an easy to recognize MUL, IMUL or FMUL
> instruction. On the 6502 that would involve several add, shift and
> branching instructions. I would be impressed if some one could
>  identify code to multiply two numbers and tell it if it is signed,
> unsigned or floating point within 10 seconds from uncommented 6502
> code.

The 8086 code is _apparently_ easy, but don't forget all the Intel 
processors are microcoded. MUL, IMUL, etc. are virtual instructions, decoded 
into simpler ones with the aid of a ROM. If you were able to see such 
microcode instructions, I think they wouldn't differ that much from a 6502 
source: as you said, expect several add, shift, etc.

The 6502 doesn't microcode, just as RISC CPU's don't. Hence, it's more 
difficult to follow a code flow, but the CPU is more faster than it were if 
it did implement microcode translation. There are many advantages and 
disadvantages with such approaches, microcoded CPU's are for example easier 
to be upgraded with new instructions or simply revised...

> Agree, once you know how to program on the 6502, learning to program
> another processor is easy.

I think this works out as a general rule: after you expose yourself to the 
realms of low level coding, jumping from one boat to another isn't that 
difficult...

Riccardo 

Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> Patrick de Zeester wrote:
> 
>> A nice example is doing a multiply. On the INTEL 'monster' processor
>> that would translate into an easy to recognize MUL, IMUL or FMUL
>> instruction. On the 6502 that would involve several add, shift and
>> branching instructions. I would be impressed if some one could
>>  identify code to multiply two numbers and tell it if it is signed,
>> unsigned or floating point within 10 seconds from uncommented 6502
>> code.
> 
> The 8086 code is _apparently_ easy, but don't forget all the Intel 
> processors are microcoded. MUL, IMUL, etc. are virtual instructions, decoded 
> into simpler ones with the aid of a ROM. If you were able to see such 
> microcode instructions, I think they wouldn't differ that much from a 6502 
> source: as you said, expect several add, shift, etc.

This probably true for the 8086 (which IIRC needed up to 70 cycles for a 
multiply), but as a programmer I don't really care whether an 
instruction is microcoded or not, that is just an implementation detail 
of the processor.

For more recent incarnations of the x86 processor I am convinced that 
multiply instructions aren't microcoded, but use dedicated multiply 
hardware instead. Otherwise it would be very hard to do a multiply in 
just 4 cycles. Again, as programmer I don't really care how the multiply 
is done internally (though I do care about the cycle count). This shows 
also the advantage of having high level instructions; multiplies have 
been speeded up by more than an order of magnitude without any change to 
the instruction or the code that uses that instruction.

But all this is a bit besides the point, the Z80 is (if I am not 
mistaken) also microcoded, but doesn't have dedicated instructions for 
performing multiplies. Hence it will be far more difficult to recognize 
code that multiplies numbers in Z80 code than for example on a MIPS 
processor (which is generally considered to be a very pure RISC 
architecture) which does have a multiply instruction.

> The 6502 doesn't microcode, just as RISC CPU's don't.

Note that even RISC CPU's nowadays have dedicated instructions for doing 
multiplies.

> Hence, it's more 
> difficult to follow a code flow, but the CPU is more faster than it were if 
> it did implement microcode translation

But it does need more instructions to get the job done. More 
instructions doesn't only mean that the instruction themselves need to 
be executed faster than on their CISC counterparts, but also that RISC 
processors need more memory bandwidth (one of the most important 
performance bottleneck in todays systems) and consequently larger caches.

> There are many advantages and 
> disadvantages with such approaches, microcoded CPU's are for example easier 
> to be upgraded with new instructions or simply revised...

The difference between CISC and RISC isn't what it used to be; CISC 
processors have become more RISC like and visa versa.

Since the Pentium Pro the CISC instructions are broken down to internal 
RISC instructions which are then via an reorder buffer fed into multiple 
execution units. Simple, often used instructions are hardwired, complex 
seldom used instructions remain microcoded. This way the average 
execution time for the CISC instructions has dropped below 1 cycle (yes, 
less than 1 cycle because multiple instructions can be executed in 
parallel).

On the other hand RISC processors have become more CISC like, by 
providing complex instructions to speedup common operations that have 
large impact on the performance (for example the AltiVec instructions on 
the PowerPC). Today the instruction set of many "RISC" processors is 
richer the early CISC processors.

Today the RISC vs. CISC debate is really a non-issue.

Riccardo Rubini wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs.
> >> Unfortunately, that's really NOT the case. Where does these 10
> >> million people come from anyway, is it from some statistics, just
> >> from beneath your hat or, more probably, straight out of your ass?
> >
> > Just  a guess considering there were 17 million C64s sold.
>
> Wrong,  The Guinness book of Records estimates there were about 30 MILLION
> units pushed out of Commodore plants. This, however, doesn't change the
> scenario a bit: how many were coders? Too few it seems, to come up with a
> good disassembly that satisfies your huge expectactions...

I heard differently....oh well, no big deal....it's still a POOL of 30
million people from which to draw, which goes back to my original
query.

>
> > Now why do you happen to be such a tightwad?
>
> Me? I am a happy, jolly person. It's just that morons like you definitely
> piss me off. I am also kind of optimistic, indeed I believe you'll simply go
> away as you came in a short time.

Don't count on it.....and YOU are here just as I am engaged in flaming
so don't get all high and mighty and place yourself above me, my
friend....we are BOTH in the mud, slinging it at each other.   Be
humble and admit this.

>
> >> Your question was actually a statement of despise towards the alleged
> >> laziness of a whole community. Some would call that an insult. I
> >> would call it intellectual suicide. It certainly is an insult to our
> >> intelligence to read your illogical babble.
> >
> > Take a flying leap.   I already said what I meant.
> > If you want to change it to something else just so you can flame me,
> > then go screw yourself.
>
> I didn't change anything. There are a bunch of ROM disassemblies, and the
> names of the ones who did those commented disassemblies are attached to the
> documents. First, you've insulted the people who did that job, for free,
> because apparently their job doesn't match your high standards;

I gave my opinon on it.  You see it as an insult, I see it as
criticism.  You saw it EXACTLY the way you wanted to see it.   This is
your OPINION, just as I have offered mine.  We could BOTH be wrong.
Now, act like an adult and engage me in MATURE conversation?

> secondly,
> you've offended the rest of us, like we're lazy dimwits who can't come up
> with decent assemblies after 30 years. A clever way to win yourself new
> friends, huh? I guess you shouldn't come up with screwing advices, since
> you're the one who's already screwed himself the most.

So now you are speaking for EVERYONE else?   Look who is talking.   You
have TOTALLY misread and misunderstood the tone of my query.  I think
you owe me an apology or at least and admission that you were mistaken.
  My query was borne of frustration, surprise and confusion and NOT
malevolence.    Accept this, please


>
>
> >> You have no clue what you're talking about. Excuse me, can you tell
> >> me the difference between CISC and RISC? Can you tell the essential
> >> elements of a very simple CPU architecture? What is an ALU, for
> >> example? Who is Von Neumann?
> >
> > Give it a rest ok?
> > Von-neuman bottleneck anyone?
>
> See? You have no clue what you're talking about... The 6502 might be a baby,
> but you just happen to be a _dumb_ baby.

Right.   You want to engage me in a pissing contest without even
knowing WHAT I know.
There are things about the 6502 that I could quote that YOU don't
know....that doesn't make you a 'dumb baby'.   Now can you put away the
insult-bot long enough to have a decent conversation?

>
> > I know what I meant, but since you appear to be in the MIND-READING
> > category I no longer need to explain myself, yes?
>
> In order for me to read your mind, I should first locate it. So far, you
> babbled wildly mindless. Your laughable "6502 is a baby" remark was like
> shooting yourself in the foot. And you already shot the other foot calling
> people names. Looks like you can enroll to the next special Olympics.

The '6502' is a baby remark is historically and technologically
contextual and relevant, and THAT is the way I presented it.  If you
choose to see it any other way that is YOUR choice, and YOURS only.

>
> >> It's ludicrous because you're savagely comparing Apple to Oranges
> >> and, as I said, the fact the 6502 has fewer registers than an Intel
> >> CPU doesn't make its code necessarily simpler at all. Actually, it
> >> could be harder to understand 6502 code off the hook, and understand
> >> what a portion of code is aiming at, since the instructions are more
> >> bare to the bones, oriented to a lower level of the machine rather
> >> than an higher one, like on the Intels; here you seem to have no
> >> knowledge whatsover about the difference between microcoded CPUs and
> >> circuitry based ones... Odds are you have never, ever tried to code
> >> a 6502 program too...
> >
> > You are reaching for insults.  I disagree with you and have good
> > reason to.
>
> Okay, then please share such wisdom with the rest of the world. This is a
> community of such lazy and dumb people we're all awaiting to learn
> something, master.

See?  There you go again implying I claimed to be the GENIUS and GOD of
Comp.Sys.Cbm........

>
> > Your implications are illogical.   I have coded 6502 for many years.
>
> Your statement is ludicrous. Where is the proof? Have you also been an
> astronaut during weekends?

What proof would suffice?  I suggest we go online and in REAL-TIME you
ask me questions about the 6502 so I cannot simply look it up.   I am
not afraid, and I know what I know.

>
> > Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone
> > in particular.
>
> Wrong. The lazy people who couldn't comment those question marks have names
> and hang out in here. You called them morons, point blank:

No, sir.....that was a misunderstanding on your behalf, and it was not
my intention.  Perhaps I worded it sloppily.

>
> "Did some moron or other uninspired person document the code? " ( from your
> original post ).
>
> There are not so many people who did it. Those who did document the code,
> you've insulted them all.

I have CRITICIZED them.   I think the code was documented POORLY.  That
is my opinion and I am entiltled to it.  Or do you disagree with that
too?


>
> You flat out called Marko Makela a moron, for example.

I don't even know the dude.

> Marko has served this
> community for years and I don't think he's made a penny out of it.

So?  Shall I bow down to him and worship him?  I have served my
community in my own way as well, I don't expect or claim to be above
criticism or questioning.

> Whenever
> I contacted him, he was helpful. A great guy. And he doesn't owe me or
> anybody a thing. He made a commented disassembly, which I found very useful
> when I played with 6502 code. I am definitely not a 6502 guru, but his
> effort has helped me definitely. It's far better than disassemblies I bought
> in the 80's and paid dearly for.

That is YOUR opinion.   Congratulations.  I am sure that not everyone
agrees with you and those who don't agree with you are not entitled to
your insults and accusations, are they?


>
> If you want fully commented code, pay some skilled coder such as iAN CooG.
> Either look around and locate the original authors and pay them. Money do
> miracles.
>
> I still believe, and I am not alone, that Marko's and the other guy's
> comments are more than enough for all purposes.
>
> > Your attempts to inflame the situation is immature to say the least.
> > Stop trying to pick a fight with me and grow up alright?
>
> I'd like to grow up, I've always like basketball, but being 1.82 m tall, I
> am too short for that. By the way, meanwhile you might try to grow a brain,
> given your midget sized skull doesn't explode because of it :-)
> 
> Have fun.
> 
> Riccardo

You too....
Gil

On 2007-01-06, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just  a guess considering there were 17 million C64s sold.

Well, how many copies has the Windows operating system sold?

I guess all of those people are available to reverse-engineer
and comment every instruction that Windows contains, so
WHY haven't they already?

Those lazy bastards! No dedication at all! They should not
have been allowed to purchase the operating system. There
should be a law against these kinds of pathetic people..

-Pasi
-- 
"As well try to understand the sun, Perrin. It simply is,
 and it is not to be understood. You cannot live without it,
 but it exacts a price. So with women."
	-- Gaul in The Wheel of Time:"The Shadow Rising"

Pasi Ojala <albert@pikkukorppi.cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> Those lazy bastards! No dedication at all! They should not
> have been allowed to purchase the operating system. There
> should be a law against these kinds of pathetic people..

Yeah, completely agreed!
/me burns a noob alive

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
Invalid operator detected!
Replace and press any key.

Kimmyland@gmail.com writes:

>> I had no idea there were 10 million people able to comment the ROMs.
> Just  a guess considering there were 17 million C64s sold.

Even more; Guinness Book of World Records once claimed 25 million
C64s were sold. It would mean that every two out of five C64 owners
would learn 6502 machine so well that they're able to disassemble
and understand the ROMs.

Of course, you could add the number of PET, VIC, C128, Plus/4, Apple,
Atari 8-bit, BBC, Oric and all other systems using 6502 or derivates.
I don't know off-hand how many 6502 related computers have been sold
in total, but it should at least 45-50 million, I presume. 10 million
still is every fifth user, and can you see Apple users spending days
and months disassembling Commodore 64 ROMs?!?

-- 
Anders Carlsson

On 5 Jan 2007 07:02:49 -0800, Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

>Come now....after 30 years, NOBODY can document the firmware without
>tons of '?'s and lots of blank lines and useless comments?  If I put my
>mind to it, even after 30 years, I could write a book on the Commodore
>code.....6502 is pretty easy, after all compared to the INTEL 'monster'
>processors they have now.

A lot of 6502 authors had to be very careful with time and space and
used oddball methods.

On http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/hacking/c=hacking15.php there's an
article about saving a few cycles by using an illegal op code.

You can imagine what sort of tricks people writing for the Atari game
consoles had to use.

There were programs which ran in the few K of RAM in the 1541 which
used the verbotten method of self-modifying code. 

Even in the various incarnations of Microsoft 6502 BASIC (Applesoft,
Commodore version 2.0, et alia) there's a jump table where they push
the address - 1 on the stack and then do rts.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tester wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2007 07:02:49 -0800, Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Come now....after 30 years, NOBODY can document the firmware without
> >tons of '?'s and lots of blank lines and useless comments?  If I put my
> >mind to it, even after 30 years, I could write a book on the Commodore
> >code.....6502 is pretty easy, after all compared to the INTEL 'monster'
> >processors they have now.
>
> A lot of 6502 authors had to be very careful with time and space and
> used oddball methods.
>
> On http://www.ctalkobt.net/cbm/hacking/c=hacking15.php there's an
> article about saving a few cycles by using an illegal op code.
>
> You can imagine what sort of tricks people writing for the Atari game
> consoles had to use.
>
> There were programs which ran in the few K of RAM in the 1541 which
> used the verbotten method of self-modifying code.
>
> Even in the various incarnations of Microsoft 6502 BASIC (Applesoft,
> Commodore version 2.0, et alia) there's a jump table where they push
> the address - 1 on the stack and then do rts.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

You should read (I think I can forward it to you) the article (A LONG
and DELICIOUSLY technical article) on INTEL processor (32 and 64-bit)
optimization which makes any 6502 'tricks' look like childsplay.
Look......6502 is not very difficult or complicated compared to the
64-bit INTELs they have now.    I don't see why many people think the
6502 is MORE complicated and convoluted.

Anyways, Just my two-cents worth

Cheers!
Gil

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168050592.227867.136110@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Riccardo Rubini wrote:
>> >> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Riccardo
>> >
>> > Riccardo, I asked a simple question and pointed no fingers at anyone in
>> > particular.
>>
>> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
>
> That is your interpretation.

I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here interpreted 
it in the same manner.

 I was not intending that at all.
> There was NO malevolence in my query.

Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if and why 
there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out abrasive 
comments that could only offend the community at large.

> You made an assumption and you were mistaken.
> At least admit that and apologize.
>

You apologise you hypocritical arsehole. 

Clockmeister wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<SNIP>

> >>
> >> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
> >
> > That is your interpretation.
>
> I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here interpreted
> it in the same manner.

You can argue that all you want.....but unless you have the power to
read minds, and unless this is a matter of popularity, MY intent was
and is non-malevolent.   It does not matter how many people thought
otherwise.   Perhaps I should have worded my post more strategically,
and I apologize if I upset people, but I insist that I was not trying
to be crude or vicious.

>  I was not intending that at all.
> > There was NO malevolence in my query.
>
> Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if and why
> there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out abrasive
> comments that could only offend the community at large.

Your opinion.  I happen to disagree.   Now, we can discuss this
maturely like adults or continue this immature flame war.   I chose the
adult way....I will await your choice.

> > You made an assumption and you were mistaken.
> > At least admit that and apologize.
> >
>
> You apologise you hypocritical arsehole.

Oh how lovely and mature.
How old are you anyways?

Gil

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1168124686.794542.46410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> >>
>> >> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
>> >
>> > That is your interpretation.
>>
>> I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here 
>> interpreted
>> it in the same manner.
>
> You can argue that all you want.....but unless you have the power to
> read minds, and unless this is a matter of popularity, MY intent was
> and is non-malevolent.   It does not matter how many people thought
> otherwise.   Perhaps I should have worded my post more strategically,
> and I apologize if I upset people, but I insist that I was not trying
> to be crude or vicious.

You wrote what you wrote and you get to deal with that.

>>  I was not intending that at all.
>> > There was NO malevolence in my query.
>>
>> Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if and 
>> why
>> there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out 
>> abrasive
>> comments that could only offend the community at large.
>
> Your opinion.

Our opinion it seems.

Clockmeister wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168124686.794542.46410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Clockmeister wrote:
> >> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
> >> >
> >> > That is your interpretation.
> >>
> >> I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here
> >> interpreted
> >> it in the same manner.
> >
> > You can argue that all you want.....but unless you have the power to
> > read minds, and unless this is a matter of popularity, MY intent was
> > and is non-malevolent.   It does not matter how many people thought
> > otherwise.   Perhaps I should have worded my post more strategically,
> > and I apologize if I upset people, but I insist that I was not trying
> > to be crude or vicious.
>
> You wrote what you wrote and you get to deal with that.
>
> >>  I was not intending that at all.
> >> > There was NO malevolence in my query.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if and
> >> why
> >> there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out
> >> abrasive
> >> comments that could only offend the community at large.
> >
> > Your opinion.
> 
> Our opinion it seems.

Congratulations.
What do you win?

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> How, after 30 years, are there under-commented, '?'-filled Firmware
> dumps of the PET and C64 Firmwares?

I think producing a coherent disassembly of one of these ROMs is a big
enough job in itself.  If you could somehow collate the programming notes of
all the people who were using these mere "dumps" as reference, on the other
hand, you'd have a hell of a tome.  Maybe some appropriate website could
serve as a repository for people's notes on BASIC/Kernal/DOS routines?

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> LDA $CB ; shift register-to tape (with respect to the last LDA, this
> one relates to $CC which will wait until the IRQ register is
> complemented.   If Bit 1 is set, then the code at $F431 will fetch the
> next byte.   This load sets up registers for.......

There's a start -- note #1.

Brian
-- 

Those Nazi's were some unreal eh? all the shit they did to people and stuff. 
yeah nazis, thats it.....



"user" <noemail.com> wrote in message 
news:459e8231$0$29167$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "iAN CooG" <iancoog@despammed.com> wrote in message 
> news:Ldvnh.100679$Fk1.552730@twister2.libero.it...
>> user <noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why fsck you for the trouble!
>> > Quotes,..stuff ya quotes...didn`t ya get layed tonight? Boner! :)
>>
>> oh, ferk off :D
>>
>> --
>> -=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
>> Bad FAT? My hard disk has high cholesterol?
>>
>>
>
> Why Fark U :)
>
> 

On 2007-01-06, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
> 64-bit INTELs they have now.    I don't see why many people think the
> 6502 is MORE complicated and convoluted.

You missed the point. The 6502 processor isn't compilicated,
but because of that the code is.

And what has the Intel processors to do with the discussion
in the first place? The thread was about commenting a 6510
disassembly.

Btw, have you counted the number of question marks in the
KERNAL disassemblies? How many did you find?

-Pasi
-- 
/Better not to ask, Elayne decided. When you ask questions, Lini used to say,
 then you have to hear the answers whether you want to or not./
	-- The Wheel of Time:"Crossroads of Twilight"

Pasi Ojala <albert@pikkukorppi.cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> Btw, have you counted the number of question marks in the
> KERNAL disassemblies? How many did you find?

On the PET disasm there are many. Probably noone cared and cares of it too
much to analyze further. But I'm confident kimmyland will do a great job on
it <3

-- 
-=[]=--- iAN CooG/HokutoForce ---=[]=-
Errare Pentium est, perseverare est Microsoft !!!

<Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1168144975.377217.113180@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168124686.794542.46410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Clockmeister wrote:
>> >> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is your interpretation.
>> >>
>> >> I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here
>> >> interpreted
>> >> it in the same manner.
>> >
>> > You can argue that all you want.....but unless you have the power to
>> > read minds, and unless this is a matter of popularity, MY intent was
>> > and is non-malevolent.   It does not matter how many people thought
>> > otherwise.   Perhaps I should have worded my post more strategically,
>> > and I apologize if I upset people, but I insist that I was not trying
>> > to be crude or vicious.
>>
>> You wrote what you wrote and you get to deal with that.
>>
>> >>  I was not intending that at all.
>> >> > There was NO malevolence in my query.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if 
>> >> and
>> >> why
>> >> there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out
>> >> abrasive
>> >> comments that could only offend the community at large.
>> >
>> > Your opinion.
>>
>> Our opinion it seems.
>
> Congratulations.
> What do you win?
>

Nothing since an apology from you is unlikely to be forthcoming.

Have a nice day all the same.

Pasi Ojala wrote:
> On 2007-01-06, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 64-bit INTELs they have now.    I don't see why many people think the
> > 6502 is MORE complicated and convoluted.
>
> You missed the point. The 6502 processor isn't compilicated,
> but because of that the code is.

I disagree and said so in my previous posts....Can you elaborate on why
you feel otherwise?

>
> And what has the Intel processors to do with the discussion
> in the first place? The thread was about commenting a 6510
> disassembly.

It was about documentation of firmware and kernals from the Commodore
machines, not just 6502 stuff.

>
> Btw, have you counted the number of question marks in the
> KERNAL disassemblies? How many did you find?

In some of them they are all over the place.....not hundreds, but there
are enough of them to make you wonder

>
> -Pasi
> --
> /Better not to ask, Elayne decided. When you ask questions, Lini used to say,
>  then you have to hear the answers whether you want to or not./
> 	-- The Wheel of Time:"Crossroads of Twilight"

Clockmeister wrote:
> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168144975.377217.113180@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Clockmeister wrote:
> >> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1168124686.794542.46410@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Clockmeister wrote:
> >> >> <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1168060147.786225.4780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > <SNIP>
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Far worse, you pointed the finger at the community as a whole.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is your interpretation.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would argue that it was your intent as virtually everyone here
> >> >> interpreted
> >> >> it in the same manner.
> >> >
> >> > You can argue that all you want.....but unless you have the power to
> >> > read minds, and unless this is a matter of popularity, MY intent was
> >> > and is non-malevolent.   It does not matter how many people thought
> >> > otherwise.   Perhaps I should have worded my post more strategically,
> >> > and I apologize if I upset people, but I insist that I was not trying
> >> > to be crude or vicious.
> >>
> >> You wrote what you wrote and you get to deal with that.
> >>
> >> >>  I was not intending that at all.
> >> >> > There was NO malevolence in my query.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bullshit. Your enquiry (and correct me if I'm wrong) did not ask if
> >> >> and
> >> >> why
> >> >> there wasn't fully documented ROM routines, instead you blurted out
> >> >> abrasive
> >> >> comments that could only offend the community at large.
> >> >
> >> > Your opinion.
> >>
> >> Our opinion it seems.
> >
> > Congratulations.
> > What do you win?
> >
>
> Nothing since an apology from you is unlikely to be forthcoming.
>
> Have a nice day all the same.

I apologize for being so sloppy in my original post.
Now how about one from you for being so aggressive and mean?

Gil

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:06:46 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:

> 
> Pasi Ojala wrote:
>> On 2007-01-06, Kimmyland@gmail.com <Kimmyland@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 64-bit INTELs they have now.    I don't see why many people think the
>> > 6502 is MORE complicated and convoluted.
>>
>> You missed the point. The 6502 processor isn't compilicated,
>> but because of that the code is.
> 
> I disagree and said so in my previous posts....Can you elaborate on why
> you feel otherwise?

Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.

>> And what has the Intel processors to do with the discussion
>> in the first place? The thread was about commenting a 6510
>> disassembly.
> 
> It was about documentation of firmware and kernals from the Commodore
> machines, not just 6502 stuff.

This doesn't really answer what the Intel processors have to do with it.

Ciao,
	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

BlackJack wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:06:46 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:
>
>
> Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
> relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.

Relatively complex code is not a function of any particular processor.
You can have it on a 6502 or on an 8086 or on an INTEL 64-bit behemoth.
 Thing is, I would bet that the 6502 code would be the easiest to
understand and comment....relatively speaking, of course.

>
> This doesn't really answer what the Intel processors have to do with it.

It was a side-discussion about complexity issues and why the kernals
were not commented to 'my' satisfaction.


> 
> Ciao,
> 	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> BlackJack wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:06:46 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:
>>
>>
>> Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
>> relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.
> 
> Relatively complex code is not a function of any particular processor.

It is, unless you believe that code written in BF (which is an 
Eight-Instruction Turing-Complete Programming Language) is clearer than 
any other programming language.

> You can have it on a 6502 or on an 8086 or on an INTEL 64-bit behemoth.
>  Thing is, I would bet that the 6502 code would be the easiest to
> understand and comment....relatively speaking, of course.

I propose you show us 6502 code which multiplies two 32-bit signed 
integers, and I will show the code to do the same thing on Pentium.

(I'm being nice here I could also have asked for floating point arithmetic)

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> > BlackJack wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:06:46 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
> >> relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.
> >
> > Relatively complex code is not a function of any particular processor.
>
> It is, unless you believe that code written in BF (which is an
> Eight-Instruction Turing-Complete Programming Language) is clearer than
> any other programming language.
>
> > You can have it on a 6502 or on an 8086 or on an INTEL 64-bit behemoth.
> >  Thing is, I would bet that the 6502 code would be the easiest to
> > understand and comment....relatively speaking, of course.
>
> I propose you show us 6502 code which multiplies two 32-bit signed
> integers, and I will show the code to do the same thing on Pentium.
>
> (I'm being nice here I could also have asked for floating point arithmetic)

You are missing the point I was trying to make.
I know things can be skewed like that, but take a kernal from a 64-bit
machine and one from a 6502....I would MUCH rather decode the 6502 one
:)

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:01:30 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:
> BlackJack wrote:
>> Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
>> relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.
> 
> Relatively complex code is not a function of any particular processor.
> You can have it on a 6502 or on an 8086 or on an INTEL 64-bit behemoth.
>  Thing is, I would bet that the 6502 code would be the easiest to
> understand and comment....relatively speaking, of course.

And here you are wrong, not only IMHO.  Many things can be expressed
shorter and more readable/understandable in fewer and higher level
instructions on more complex processors.  The complexity of a 16-bit
multiply for example can be hidden behind one machine instruction on a x64
processor where you need many instructions on the 6502.  And that one
instruction is written the same way by all programmers whereas the
multiply routine on the 6502 can be written in different ways, so you
can't just look for *the* multiplication subroutine pattern but really
have to figure out what that code really does until you finally know it's
a multiply routine.  So that's harder to comment.

Ciao,
	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

BlackJack wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:01:30 -0800, Kimmyland wrote:
> > BlackJack wrote:
> >> Because even relatively simple things have to be expressed in long and
> >> relatively complex code.  This was said several times in this thread.
> >
> > Relatively complex code is not a function of any particular processor.
> > You can have it on a 6502 or on an 8086 or on an INTEL 64-bit behemoth.
> >  Thing is, I would bet that the 6502 code would be the easiest to
> > understand and comment....relatively speaking, of course.
>
> And here you are wrong, not only IMHO.  Many things can be expressed
> shorter and more readable/understandable in fewer and higher level
> instructions on more complex processors.  The complexity of a 16-bit
> multiply for example can be hidden behind one machine instruction on a x64
> processor where you need many instructions on the 6502.  And that one
> instruction is written the same way by all programmers whereas the
> multiply routine on the 6502 can be written in different ways, so you
> can't just look for *the* multiplication subroutine pattern but really
> have to figure out what that code really does until you finally know it's
> a multiply routine.  So that's harder to comment.
>
> Ciao,
> 	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

You make a good point, but I think that is the EXCEPTION (no pun
intended :) ) rather than the rule....I am not talking about a few
routines here and there, I am talking about the BASIC infrastructure
and layout of the procs......it could work the other way around too, ya
know :)

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> Patrick de Zeester wrote:
> You are missing the point I was trying to make.
> I know things can be skewed like that,

I don't believe what I asked for skewed the comparison; multiplying 
numbers is not exactly a exotic operation.

There are many more examples of common operations which on a 6502 would 
require many instructions which would require only few or only one on a 
more sophisticated processor. As soon as you have to operate on more 
than 8-bits at a time the 6502 code is likely to become less clear than 
on your Intel 64-bit 'monster' processor.

> but take a kernal from a 64-bit
> machine and one from a 6502....I would MUCH rather decode the 6502 one
> :)

(I prefer using x86 over 64-bit because there are many processors which 
support 64-bit operations)

If the x86 kernel had only to support the functionality of the 6502 
kernal the x86 version would probably be the easiest to understand.

The reason a x86 kernel (which one are we talking about anyway?) is 
likely to be more complex is that it supports more functionality, like 
pre-emptive multi-tasking, virtual memory...etc.

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>
> I don't believe what I asked for skewed the comparison; multiplying
> numbers is not exactly a exotic operation.
>
> There are many more examples of common operations which on a 6502 would
> require many instructions which would require only few or only one on a
> more sophisticated processor. As soon as you have to operate on more
> than 8-bits at a time the 6502 code is likely to become less clear than
> on your Intel 64-bit 'monster' processor.

I agree with one of your points here.....I understand the concept.
But I would still prefer looking at a 6502 instruction set than an
INTEL 64-bitter with all the different instruction modes, fetch-ahead,
caching, etc.   I AGREE with your one point above, so we are in
agreement about that.

>
> (I prefer using x86 over 64-bit because there are many processors which
> support 64-bit operations)
>
> If the x86 kernel had only to support the functionality of the 6502
> kernal the x86 version would probably be the easiest to understand.
>
> The reason a x86 kernel (which one are we talking about anyway?) is
> likely to be more complex is that it supports more functionality, like
> pre-emptive multi-tasking, virtual memory...etc.

Nods, it is not just the software you have to consider, it is the
hardware that supports it.
And WRITING code in 6502 has GOTTA be easier than assembling code and
optimizing it on an INTEL 64-bit.....your example notwithstanding.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>> I don't believe what I asked for skewed the comparison; multiplying
>> numbers is not exactly a exotic operation.
>>
>> There are many more examples of common operations which on a 6502 would
>> require many instructions which would require only few or only one on a
>> more sophisticated processor. As soon as you have to operate on more
>> than 8-bits at a time the 6502 code is likely to become less clear than
>> on your Intel 64-bit 'monster' processor.
> 
> I agree with one of your points here.....I understand the concept.
> But I would still prefer looking at a 6502 instruction set than an
> INTEL 64-bitter with all the different instruction modes, fetch-ahead,
> caching, etc.   I AGREE with your one point above, so we are in
> agreement about that.
> 
>> (I prefer using x86 over 64-bit because there are many processors which
>> support 64-bit operations)
>>
>> If the x86 kernel had only to support the functionality of the 6502
>> kernal the x86 version would probably be the easiest to understand.
>>
>> The reason a x86 kernel (which one are we talking about anyway?) is
>> likely to be more complex is that it supports more functionality, like
>> pre-emptive multi-tasking, virtual memory...etc.
> 
> Nods, it is not just the software you have to consider, it is the
> hardware that supports it.
> And WRITING code in 6502 has GOTTA be easier than assembling code and
> optimizing it on an INTEL 64-bit.....your example notwithstanding.

Writing (& reading) functional code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor 
is IMO not harder, but easier than the 6502. I agree that OPTIMIZING 
code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor is harder if you want to squeeze 
out the last bit of performance. The days of simply cycle counting are 
over.

Main reason that optimizing has become harder is the complexity of 
modern processors. The complexity of the processor in in large part due 
to the fact that processors have become several orders of magnitude 
faster, but everything around it not (with memory being the most 
important factor). Consequently processor designers had to apply clever 
solutions (cache, out-of-order execution, speculative execution...etc) 
to keep the processor doing useful work while waiting for other parts of 
the systems. These solutions were partially successful. Nowadays 
optimizing is more about optimizing I/O and memory access patterns than 
lowering the instruction cycle count.

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>
> Writing (& reading) functional code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor
> is IMO not harder, but easier than the 6502. I agree that OPTIMIZING
> code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor is harder if you want to squeeze
> out the last bit of performance. The days of simply cycle counting are
> over.
>
> Main reason that optimizing has become harder is the complexity of
> modern processors. The complexity of the processor in in large part due
> to the fact that processors have become several orders of magnitude
> faster, but everything around it not (with memory being the most
> important factor). Consequently processor designers had to apply clever
> solutions (cache, out-of-order execution, speculative execution...etc)
> to keep the processor doing useful work while waiting for other parts of
> the systems. These solutions were partially successful. Nowadays
> optimizing is more about optimizing I/O and memory access patterns than
> lowering the instruction cycle count.

Remember too that with the more powerful processor comes the more
powerful peripheral devices and support structure and more UTILIZATION
of power.  Stuff that would make the 6502 sweat.  Maybe the 6502 code
would be long and spurrious, but at least you would know what it was
doing and it would be easier to read, but MUCH more tedious....

Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>
> Writing (& reading) functional code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor
> is IMO not harder, but easier than the 6502. I agree that OPTIMIZING
> code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor is harder if you want to squeeze
> out the last bit of performance. The days of simply cycle counting are
> over.
>
> Main reason that optimizing has become harder is the complexity of
> modern processors. The complexity of the processor in in large part due
> to the fact that processors have become several orders of magnitude
> faster, but everything around it not (with memory being the most
> important factor). Consequently processor designers had to apply clever
> solutions (cache, out-of-order execution, speculative execution...etc)
> to keep the processor doing useful work while waiting for other parts of
> the systems. These solutions were partially successful. Nowadays
> optimizing is more about optimizing I/O and memory access patterns than
> lowering the instruction cycle count.

Remember too that with the more powerful processor comes the more
powerful peripheral devices and support structure and more UTILIZATION
of power.  Stuff that would make the 6502 sweat.  Maybe the 6502 code
would be long and spurrious, but at least you would know what it was
doing and it would be easier to read, but MUCH more tedious....

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> You should read (I think I can forward it to you) the article (A LONG
> and DELICIOUSLY technical article) on INTEL processor (32 and 64-bit)
> optimization which makes any 6502 'tricks' look like childsplay.
> Look......6502 is not very difficult or complicated compared to the
> 64-bit INTELs they have now.    I don't see why many people think the
> 6502 is MORE complicated and convoluted.

Because the mainstream is very rarely interested in low-level optimising 
and assembly code tricks these days. If that is done at all, it is done 
on the compiler level. Thus an average programmer of those beasts has to 
know how to operate the mouse while an average programmer in the times 
of 6502 had to know hex, assebmly and a number of CPU tricks to create a 
palatable (not to mention good) applications.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> Patrick de Zeester wrote:
>> Writing (& reading) functional code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor
>> is IMO not harder, but easier than the 6502. I agree that OPTIMIZING
>> code for the 64-bit x86 Intel processor is harder if you want to squeeze
>> out the last bit of performance. The days of simply cycle counting are
>> over.
>>
>> Main reason that optimizing has become harder is the complexity of
>> modern processors. The complexity of the processor in in large part due
>> to the fact that processors have become several orders of magnitude
>> faster, but everything around it not (with memory being the most
>> important factor). Consequently processor designers had to apply clever
>> solutions (cache, out-of-order execution, speculative execution...etc)
>> to keep the processor doing useful work while waiting for other parts of
>> the systems. These solutions were partially successful. Nowadays
>> optimizing is more about optimizing I/O and memory access patterns than
>> lowering the instruction cycle count.
> 
> Remember too that with the more powerful processor comes the more
> powerful peripheral devices and support structure and more UTILIZATION
> of power.

Power comes at a price.

> Stuff that would make the 6502 sweat. 

Which stuff?

> Maybe the 6502 code
> would be long and spurrious, but at least you would know what it was
> doing and it would be easier to read, but MUCH more tedious....

I disagree about being easier to read, I rather have a single 
instruction which purpose is obvious than tens or hundreds of 
instructions (which are easy to understand by themselves) from which the 
purpose is not directly obvious.

Today we have also AVR, ARM and MIPS processors which are more suitable 
for for low power solutions, and have much nicer instruction sets than 
the 6502.

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> 
> Anytime, anywhere Marco........I can offer you 6502 code spiffed up to
> look like a well-dressed christmas tree if you want.....just let me
> know.
> 

Me too.


marco

marco wrote:
> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Anytime, anywhere Marco........I can offer you 6502 code spiffed up to
> > look like a well-dressed christmas tree if you want.....just let me
> > know.
> >
>
> Me too.
>
>
> marco

Gimme a quick project to do on here (utility) and I will try to do it
in a few minutes
:)

Cheers!

Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
> marco wrote:
>> Kimmyland@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Anytime, anywhere Marco........I can offer you 6502 code spiffed up to
>>> look like a well-dressed christmas tree if you want.....just let me
>>> know.
>>>
>> Me too.
>>
>>
>> marco
> 
> Gimme a quick project to do on here (utility) and I will try to do it
> in a few minutes
> :)
> 
> Cheers!
> 

How about a good 'Arkanoid' clone.  I started on one about 15 years ago 
and never finished it.

Utility is easy.  What the hell do I need you for?


marco

marco wrote:
> Utility is easy.  What the hell do I need you for?

Dunric was begging for an UNFORMAT.

Have at it Gil.

christianlott1 wrote:
> marco wrote:
>> Utility is easy.  What the hell do I need you for?
> 
> Dunric was begging for an UNFORMAT.
> 
> Have at it Gil.
> 

Remember to first logoff and then login as gil.



marco

marco wrote:
> Remember to first logoff and then login as gil.

Cheers!

christianlott1 wrote:
> marco wrote:
> > Utility is easy.  What the hell do I need you for?
>
> Dunric was begging for an UNFORMAT.
>
> Have at it Gil.

Yikes!   Disk routines!
Would that be for the 1541? or for the C64?
:)

christianlott1 wrote:
> marco wrote:
> > Remember to first logoff and then login as gil.
> 
> Cheers!

Stop giving him ammunition!!
Argh!