Re: Ciderpress for OS/X?

[datajerk <datajerk@gmail.com>]

On Aug 13, 3:45 pm, "John B. Matthews" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <4976983e-eb79-4a06-a061-0a15679f7...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>  datajerk <dataj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 11:21 am, "John B. Matthews" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
> > >     /* Assume 80-column card, ProDOS, Basic */
> > >     __asm__ ("jsr %w", 0xc300);
> > >     __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x36);
> > >     __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe30);
> > >     __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x37);
> > >     __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe31);
> > >     __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x38);
> > >     __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe32);
> > >     __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x39);
> > >     __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe33);
> [...]
> > Not working with the //e.  Can you send me the code for that?
>
> I ran this on Sweet16 2.1.1, ProDOS 2.0.3 (06-May-93), ROM 3 firmware.

Still no love.  I tried Sweet16 2.1.1, ProDOS8 2.0.3, ProDOS BASIC
1.5, ROM 3 firmware with the above/below code and I cannot access the
clock after col80 is setup.  I get the same results on Virtual ]
[ emulating a //e.  If I remove the Thunderclock card from Virtual ]
[ I get the same screen trash with or without col80.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

void col80()
{
    __asm__ ("jsr %w", 0xc300);
    __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x36);
    __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe30);
    __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x37);
    __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe31);
    __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x38);
    __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe32);
    __asm__ ("lda %b", 0x39);
    __asm__ ("sta %w", 0xbe33);
}

int main()
{
        time_t starttime, endtime;

        col80();
        clrscr();

        starttime=time(NULL);
        printf("Start time: %s\n",asctime(localtime(&starttime)));

        endtime=time(NULL);
        printf("\nEnd time: %s\n",asctime(localtime(&endtime)));

        exit(0);
}

I speculate that the above code some how hoses slot 7 (where the clock
card is).

jsr c300 with Aztec C does work and does not interfere with the clock
card.  Perhaps a bug in cc65.  I am out of ideas and permutations to
try.

Hint:  The __asm__ code some how hoses basic 1.5.  I have to reboot to
run a second test.

Thanks again for your help.