Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!chinet!saj
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: TOS 1.6...
Summary: Just me whining again
Keywords: TOS source
Message-ID: <1990Jan11.182305.24007@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 11 Jan 90 18:23:05 GMT
References: <9001100808.AA18195@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1252@electro.UUCP>
Reply-To: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 24

In article <1252@electro.UUCP> ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) writes:
>
>actually, darek mihocka and myself have an STE and we've disassembled the
>exception handlers in TOS 1.6, and sure enough, it checks some
>system variable which tells the software what type of stack frame it can
>expect. therefore, if its a 68000 processor, it uses an offset begeinning

This is what serious developers do when source to critical parts of an OS
isn't made available, and when the documentation is sparse  (in case there's
any confusion, I think it's a good thing to do under the circumstances, as
long as it doesn't lead to use of version-specific and accidental features.
I attach no moral color, good or bad to Atari's reluctance to disclose TOS
source to registered developers.  The sparse documentation is unfortunate,
but not evil).  My point is that all the stuff Atari hopes to prevent by
keeping the source confidential, even from those who have signed non-disclosure
agreements can happen anyway.  Here we have 2 people who've earned a reputation
as cautious programmers doing their own dissembly.  Guys with PC game experience
and a lot less caution can do the same.  On any timescale I can imagine, it
would be better for Atari and its customers if developers had an easy way to
check EXACTLY what TOS would do in a given situation (and any commented source,
no matter how 'ugly', beats a dissassembly).

[whining off]
                                   Steve J.