Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site drivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!drivax!holloway
From: holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari16
Subject: Re: How close to ALCYON C is TOS?
Message-ID: <435@drivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Apr-86 13:48:33 EST
Article-I.D.: drivax.435
Posted: Thu Apr 17 13:48:33 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Apr-86 13:06:24 EST
References: <8604121902.AA24030@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway)
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Lines: 23

In article <8604121902.AA24030@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> RDROYA01%ULKYVX.BITNET@SU-Forsythe.ARPA writes:
>
>THE FOLLOWING IS HEARSAY FROM A TRUSTED SOURCE
>
>David Betz writes about developing xlisp for the Atari using MicroEmacs
>under CP/M-68K.  This was said to be in the _BYTE_ section of *Compuserve*.
>So, has anyone used the crippled cp/m-68k *and* TOS who can explain why
>header format is the same and so forth and yet TOS was to have been designed
>from the ground up?

Why do you think?

The load file format for TOS programs is identical to that for CP/M-68K
programs, except that the relocation information has been compressed.

The header at the beginning is the same because the load files are at least
that similar.

-- 
"Pitiful Earthlings.... who will save you now?"

....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway
(I'm not THAT Bruce Holloway, I'm the other one.)