markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/01/90)
In article <42700026@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, schwager@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > (Yet another novice question) > > Just for yucks and to debug stuff from time to time, I try to print out the > address of a > struct Screen *Screen; > by doing this: > printf ("Address of Screen: %08lx\n", Screen); > I'm using Aztec C, 3.4 version, by the way (I'll upgrade this time). Good idea... > Anyway, I get a hellacious number like 00C194E0, which as we all know is > about 12 Million. This is especially strange considering I have a 1 Meg > Amiga 500. Any ideas why this is so bizarre? Most of my addresses turn > out to be some various shade of weird, just like this example. Thanks. Actually not so wierd. On Amiga 500s and 2000's the first 512K of memory is addressed from 000000-07FFFF as one would expect. The second 512K is addressed from C00000-C7FFFF. This the is infamous "slow-fast" RAM. In theory, with Obese Agnes, a jumper gets moved and this memory gets moved into the memory range reserved for CHIP ram (000000-1FFFFF, FAST RAM starts at 200000 and can go to 9FFFFF). In practice, with Obese Agnes and at least the Rev 6.X motherboards this now real CHIP RAM is still getting addressed at C00000 for (unexplained) "technical reasons". On the official memory map C00000-CFFFFF is designated as "CPU Ram" whatever that was supposed to be. Some older Amiga 1000 memory boards put their memory here, which is why Commodore briefly advertised the 1000 as capable of a Max of 9.5 megs (Not that you would ever get a 1000's bus to be happy talking to enough boards to do that.) So your findings make since. In a 512K CHIP ram machine if you were to look at the bitmap pointers in the various rastports, they would indeed be in the 000000-07FFFF range. > -Mike -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Gooderum Only... \ Good Cheer !!! Academic Computing Services /// \___________________________ University of Kansas /// /| __ _ Bix: markgood \\\ /// /__| |\/| | | _ /_\ makes it Bitnet: MARKV@UKANVAX \/\/ / | | | | |__| / \ possible... Internet: mark@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (02/02/90)
In article <42700027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> schwager@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >I will, however, continue to doubt the 1.1 RKM's, and as soon as >I'm done following The The on the Midwestern leg of their tour (I'm gonna >be a The-head :-), I'll save up and buy the 1.2 RKM's. Hopefully they'll ^^^ >have less head-bashing fodder in them. I hope you mean 1.3. There never were a set a 1.2 RKM's (there was some 1.2 technical info in the 1.2 Enhancer Manual). I hope you are running the 1.3 software too, there still are some folks who have 1.2 (or 1.1 (or 1.0!))) >-Mike Peter --- Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer.
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (02/10/90)
In article <42700027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> schwager@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
schwager> I will, however, continue to doubt the 1.1 RKM's, and as
schwager> soon as I'm done following The The on the Midwestern leg of
schwager> their tour (I'm gonna be a The-head :-), I'll save up and
schwager> buy the 1.2 RKM's. Hopefully they'll have less head-bashing
schwager> fodder in them.
On 1 Feb 90 16:35:33 GMT, peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) said:
Peter> I hope you mean 1.3. There never were a set a 1.2 RKM's (there
Peter> was some 1.2 technical info in the 1.2 Enhancer Manual). I
Peter> hope you are running the 1.3 software too, there still are some
Peter> folks who have 1.2 (or 1.1 (or 1.0!)))
Sure there were! What about the RKMs published by Addison-Wesley,
with the dopy little pictures of a mouse or something, and a colored
bar across near the top? They had 1.2 functions in them... The
volumes were "RKM: Exec", "RKM: Intuition", "RKM: Libraries and
Devices" and "RKM: Hardware Reference Manual".
But I agree no one should look to buy 1.2 RKMs *now* with the
wonderful 1.3 RKMs out now. (Excellent job, guys, esp. on L&D...)
Deven
--
Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu
Snail: 2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 274-0327
Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (02/13/90)
In article <DEVEN.90Feb9191356@netserv2.rpi.edu> deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: > >In article <42700027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> schwager@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >schwager> I will, however, continue to doubt the 1.1 RKM's, and as >schwager> soon as I'm done following The The on the Midwestern leg of >schwager> their tour (I'm gonna be a The-head :-), I'll save up and >schwager> buy the 1.2 RKM's. Hopefully they'll have less head-bashing >schwager> fodder in them. > >On 1 Feb 90 16:35:33 GMT, peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) said: > >Peter> I hope you mean 1.3. There never were a set a 1.2 RKM's (there >Peter> was some 1.2 technical info in the 1.2 Enhancer Manual). I >Peter> hope you are running the 1.3 software too, there still are some >Peter> folks who have 1.2 (or 1.1 (or 1.0!))) > >Sure there were! What about the RKMs published by Addison-Wesley, >with the dopy little pictures of a mouse or something, and a colored >bar across near the top? They had 1.2 functions in them... The >volumes were "RKM: Exec", "RKM: Intuition", "RKM: Libraries and >Devices" and "RKM: Hardware Reference Manual". Sorry - wrong. The manuals you refer to (white with the coloured square on the cover and the coloured stripe near the bottom of the spine) were for the 1.1 release of the system software. I used to keep printed copies of the autodocs of the 1.2 Intuition functions tucked in the back of mine. The original 1.0 manuals were all white. Actually, those aren't even the originals, since we have here prerelease manuals corresponding to very early pre-1.0 software. One day years from know, a good trivia question will be "Name each of the 1.1 manuals and state what colour they were"... >But I agree no one should look to buy 1.2 RKMs *now* with the >wonderful 1.3 RKMs out now. (Excellent job, guys, esp. on L&D...) Thanks... > >Deven >-- >Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu >Snail: 2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 274-0327 >Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven >Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. Peter -- Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer.