Author |
Message |
|
simplethinker snjwffl
Active Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 700
|
Posted: 10 Apr 2009 04:15:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's got to be something more. There is no way that (pure) BASIC can do that to your calculator, ever. When you're working with TI-OS variables, the OS does a check to see if there's enough spare RAM. If there isn't, it throws a memory error before any data was saved/transferred. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TKD_01
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 Posts: 51
|
Posted: 10 Apr 2009 04:20:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
darkstone knight wrote: basic can never (well... unless your name is tifreak8x..) crash your calc
Haha, right. Basic can't. But, Basic can trigger ASM or Flash programs, which will crash your calc. MirageOS is a great example of this (and I'm now led to believe that it somehow caused the 'great crash' on my friend's calc). As many have reported, sometimes MirageOS 'forgets' your programs, or where they are stored anyways. Now, I'm not big on FlashAPPS, so I have no clue what causes MOS to 'forget' the program, but I do know that when Mirage does 'forget' a program, a crash can occur when a TI-Basic error is triggered. Not too sure how the two tie in, but I know for a fact that that does happen, because it's happened to me countless times...which makes me wonder why I still like MirageOS...but that's beside the point. So, in other words, the Basic error may have triggered a MirageOS error, which may have triggered a crash, or some sort of arrangement like that. But, regardless if Basic directly or indirectly triggered a crash, I know it happened when an error within the Basic programming occurred. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darkstone knight
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Sep 2008 Posts: 438
|
Posted: 10 Apr 2009 04:20:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tifreak8x crashed his calc whit expr("stuff |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TKD_01
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 Posts: 51
|
Posted: 10 Apr 2009 04:25:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ya, I crashed mine when I tried putting Y1 onto the home screen and pressing enter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mapar007
Advanced Member
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 Posts: 365
|
Posted: 11 Apr 2009 02:57:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 'issues' with mirage:
There is a mysterious bug (in the OS, not in Mirage, I think) with garbage collection with hidden programs. They seem to disappear until the next reset, error handler crashes, or even weirder stuff... (I once got a flickering screen for about 5 secs and then RAM Clear, it was definitely my most spectacular crash ever...) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TKD_01
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 Posts: 51
|
Posted: 11 Apr 2009 12:11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mapar007 wrote: The 'issues' with mirage:
There is a mysterious bug (in the OS, not in Mirage, I think) with garbage collection with hidden programs. They seem to disappear until the next reset, error handler crashes, or even weirder stuff... (I once got a flickering screen for about 5 secs and then RAM Clear, it was definitely my most spectacular crash ever...)
Ok, why doesn't this same error occur with DoorsCS or any other shell for that purpose? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 770
|
Posted: 14 Apr 2009 08:09:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mapar007 wrote: The 'issues' with mirage:
There is a mysterious bug (in the OS, not in Mirage, I think) with garbage collection with hidden programs. They seem to disappear until the next reset, error handler crashes, or even weirder stuff... (I once got a flickering screen for about 5 secs and then RAM Clear, it was definitely my most spectacular crash ever...)
I'm pretty sure what happens is stuff gets messed up if there is a program in archive which does not have a corresponding VAT entry with the same name (Garbage Collection has to update the VAT). When you hide an archived program, it changes the entry in RAM but the archived version is unchanged. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
magicdanw pcGuru()
Calc Guru
Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 1110
|
Posted: 14 Apr 2009 09:03:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
darkstone knight wrote: tifreak8x crashed his calc whit expr("stuff Is this replicable? I thought that only old versions of the OS (like, really old 83+ OSes) could be crashed in pure basic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 770
|
Posted: 14 Apr 2009 11:35:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
magicdanw wrote: darkstone knight wrote: tifreak8x crashed his calc whit expr("stuff Is this replicable? I thought that only old versions of the OS (like, really old 83+ OSes) could be crashed in pure basic.
I'm pretty sure the expr("") bug was on the original TI-83... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darkstone knight
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Sep 2008 Posts: 438
|
Posted: 15 Apr 2009 04:38:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
you should ask him :biggrin: |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thebetter1
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Posts: 86
|
Posted: 15 Apr 2009 07:55:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back to screen drawing...
I have an 83+, which explains why your screens draw so fast. My screens are 10x12 maps of 6x6 sprites, and I could originally get it down to 18 seconds. I then changed my method so that there is a list (I prefer lists over matrices) that is a pointer to the data for the sprite, which takes about 1/4 of the space but an extra 6 seconds to draw. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TKD_01
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 Posts: 51
|
Posted: 23 Apr 2009 08:54:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thebetter1 wrote: Back to screen drawing...
I have an 83+, which explains why your screens draw so fast. My screens are 10x12 maps of 6x6 sprites, and I could originally get it down to 18 seconds. I then changed my method so that there is a list (I prefer lists over matrices) that is a pointer to the data for the sprite, which takes about 1/4 of the space but an extra 6 seconds to draw.
Right, well, you've pretty much got it figured out. What do you want, less space or less time? Once you've answered that, you can then choose between lists (for less space) or matrixes (for more speed). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darkstone knight
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Sep 2008 Posts: 438
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2009 05:09:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
matrixes are smaller than lists...
[A](y,x \\6 bytes
L1(AY+X+1 \\ 9 bytes (asuming both start at 0) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|