Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reconstructed Luminary 163 #1099

Merged
merged 13 commits into from Sep 22, 2019
Merged

Reconstructed Luminary 163 #1099

merged 13 commits into from Sep 22, 2019

Conversation

thewonderidiot
Copy link
Collaborator

@thewonderidiot thewonderidiot commented Sep 22, 2019

Luminary 163 has also been reconstructed! The process is described in #1097.

This was based off of Luminary 173, and was even easier to put together than Luminary 173, since there's not one, but three memos that describe all of the changes between the two. The problem point for this, like for Luminary 173, was ACB L-11, but I've discussed the resolution to that elsewhere.

I did have to write one "line" from scratch for this, but it's very trivial. Between Luminary 164 and 167, the erasable TOOFEW moved from its old location (sharing with QSAVED) to its final resting place, the unswitched unshared location 1354. This was unused in earlier revisions. However, Luminary 152 through 163 did use locations 1355 and 1356 as SERVDURN and DUMLOOPS. To make sure they assembled to the correct place, I added the line

FILLER      ERASE

to use up location 1354, and gave a descriptive comment about why I put it there.

There's a particularly fun piece of data we get from this reconstruction: Luminary memo 148 has a table showing the number of words remaining in each bank for Luminary 163. As shown in this comment, this reconstruction matches that table exactly. Which isn't surprising, really, but it adds even more confidence that the reconstructions for 163, 173, and 178 are all correct.

Anyways, as mentioned in the Luminary 173 pull request, I haven't added either program to the top-level Makefile to prevent merge conflicts. They'll need to be added to it after merging.

@rburkey2005
Copy link
Member

I'll do the Makefile stuff. I have to change the VirtualAGC program anyway, to include 163 and 173 support, so it's only natural.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants