Re: ROM modules

From	"Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com>
Subject	Re: ROM modules
Newsgroups	comp.sys.acorn.misc
Date	2012-03-27 18:21 +0100
Message-ID	<52771de945steve@revi11.plus.com> (permalink)
References	<5274db99dcdave@triffid.co.uk> <a145e57452.martin@bach.planiverse.com> <5274f22180dave@triffid.co.uk> <a4d3037552.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
Organization	None

Show all headers | View raw

In article <a4d3037552.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
   Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> Ah, I see. Not a good idea to have an RMEnsure FPEmulator in a !Run 
> file.

That's not quite true - as Martin goes on to say.

It's fine to RMEnsure FPEmulator in a !Run file if all you're planning on
doing if a suitable version isn't running is to generate an error message
(or similar). If, however, you go on to try to softload a replacement,
you're into the world of pain Martin describes.

Ta,

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

ROM modules Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 08:04 +0000
  Re: ROM modules Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2012-03-23 10:50 +0100
    Re: ROM modules Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 12:10 +0000
      Re: ROM modules Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2012-03-23 16:23 +0100
        Re: ROM modules "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> - 2012-03-27 18:21 +0100

csiph-web