Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!sdrc!cinnet!kilian From: kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: OldOpenLibrary Keywords: LVO OldOpenLibrary Message-ID: <1991May29.183933.18926@cinnet.com> Date: 29 May 91 18:39:33 GMT Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH Lines: 34 Andrew, >I was referring to your statement to the effect that reassembling >would not fix either program. >This is wrong as I tried to explain. To be more explicit: Imagine a >program written for 1.1 which used the OpenLibrary() function as >documented. When assembled by a 1.1 assembler it calls the >(Old)OpenLibrary vector which doesn't do what is documented (doesn't >work properly). If re-assembled by a 1.2 or later assembler it will >call the new OpenLibrary vector and now work properly. If, however, >the absolute vector is used to make the call then re-assembling will >not fix the problem. There must have been quite a number of programs (running under 1.0) that did not use (Old)OpenLibrary the way is was documented. (In other words: They ommited to pass a version number.) Otherwise, Commodore would have simply *replaced* the v1.0 (Old)OpenLibrary by the newer version. >> Well, I also mentioned the size limitations of the Library jump table ;-) >> -- what other reason are there? >Perhaps Commodore might want try to make a programmer think about >what version of a library he needs by explicitly making him specify a >version number. I agree. -- /