00:55 <ptrkriz> how to call a system call?

00:58 <ptrkriz> do I need to use c-function? I wanna avoid it

01:01 <ptrkriz> http://soton.mpeforth.com/flag/jfar/vol3/no2/report4.pdf heh it has SYSCALL _read <parameter list> but honestly no clue... it does seeem to avoid C which is neat

01:44 <MrMobius> siraben, ya casio has some really impressive programmables

01:44 <MrMobius> calculators that is

01:44 <MrMobius> I still have my Casio AFX 2.0+ from 2002 or so which has an x86 compatible V20 and ROM DOS

01:45 <MrMobius> you could write DOS programs in Turbo C 2.0 and upload them to the calculator :)

01:45 <MrMobius> later ones had a 29mhz iirc 32 bit CPU. SH3 maybe. very good for C

02:48 <ptrkriz> https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Constants.html

02:48 <ptrkriz> 3E+08 fconstant SPEED-O-LIGHT

02:49 <ptrkriz> SPEED-O-LIGHT seems empty, returns nothing

02:49 <ptrkriz> constant works tho

02:52 <ptrkriz> aaa

02:52 <ptrkriz> I gotit

02:52 <ptrkriz> didnt know about f,

02:52 <ptrkriz> f.

04:31 <proteusguy> siraben, copying ROMs is likely a copyright violation but reverse engineering is not. If you don't clean room your reverse engineering you have a potential liability for patent violations but that's highly unlikely for a ROM.

04:31 <siraben> Makes sense. Is it a violation to distribute the reverse engineered code (e.g. disassembled to asm)?

04:32 <proteusguy> siraben, the first amendment actually was a defense for violation of laws making getting around copy protection declared unconstitutional. That's a bit different than normal copyright claims however.

04:35 <proteusguy> siraben, regarding disassembled code - it depends. If the code is clearly the same as the original asm code then you've likely got a violation. The bigger issue will likely be the creation of the binary and how similar it is to the original. It is not a copyright violation to express the same content in a different manner. That's called a new er... I'm forgetting the legal term right now.. but it's a new expression of the idea

04:35 <proteusguy> which is generally permitted.

04:35 <siraben> proteusguy: "derived work"?

04:35 <proteusguy> There are lots of issues of fair use that come into being which are allowed.

04:36 <proteusguy> Well it would be an issue as to whether or not it's considered a derived work that would determine if it's a violation. Most derived works are not allowed. So no, it needs to be a new expression of the work that is not considered whole derived.

04:36 <siraben> Yeah. A similar situation is happening with binary patches for the reMarkable tablet, https://github.com/ddvk/remarkable-hacks , the developer contacted the company and is not allowed to even disclose how they performed the patches.

04:37 <proteusguy> So basically for a ROM, if you can its API definition (locations in memory where key functions exist) and copy those but then create an implementation of your own, you will not likely be in violation of copyright and it would not be a derived work.

04:38 <proteusguy> If you just disassemble and reassemble then you're likely in violation.

04:38 <siraben> I see. So a BCALL compatible rewrite of TI-OS would be legal

04:39 <proteusguy> siraben, for reMarkable - that's a EULA violation which is a contract between the user and the company - not a copyright issue. Whether the EULA is enforceable is another issue entirely.

04:39 <proteusguy> siraben, yes re:TI-OS. Would be extremely difficult to stop.

04:39 <siraben> Ah I see

04:40 <siraben> In fact TI did release the API listing of their OS (now removed) to encourage ASM development.

04:41 <siraben> There's some discussion on the reMarkable community about replacing the main application (xochitl) entirely with an open source one

04:41 <siraben> I'm pondering to write a Forth to run on the tablet, heh

06:49 <proteusguy> siraben, that would be cool!

13:49 <mark4> MeMobius you know how to determine if your x86 is an NEC V20 or if its an intel CPU?

13:50 <mark4> iassume by V20 you mean NEC V20 yes? :)