Page 1 of 1
negative performance ratings
Posted: 05 Apr 2005 06:58
by garf
Hi there. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here goes:
I seem to have a bit of a problem with the NewPerformanceCalculation option (or not, but it's definitely performance-related). The picture should be self-explanatory.
Otherwise, a great job! TTD was great, TTDPatch gave it a new life!

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 13:04
by Csaboka
This is a known problem. If the performance score ends up above 127, TTD incorrectly displays it as negative. I'll fix this when I have some time.
Posted: 05 Apr 2005 14:48
by garf
I thought so. So... it's a signed int where it should be unsigned?
Posted: 05 Apr 2005 19:51
by Csaboka
Yes, exactly. TTD doesn't have a "print unsigned byte" character, only a "print signed byte" one, so I've used it, thinking no one will ever reach a performance of 128... The fix is easy, though: I'll just zero-extend it and print as unsigned word.
Posted: 05 Apr 2005 21:00
by garf
Cool... I should dig deeper, it's already getting interesting.

Posted: 05 Apr 2005 21:09
by krtaylor
Are you a programmer garf?
Posted: 06 Apr 2005 05:28
by garf
Yes. Although I haven't touched anything but Java and PHP for
ages. Gotta pull myself together!

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 13:37
by krtaylor
Have you ever coded in assembler?
Posted: 06 Apr 2005 14:36
by Szappy
krtaylor stop it here

you might scare him off

Posted: 06 Apr 2005 14:46
by krtaylor
Someone observant enough to notice the signed/unsigned int problem, would I think be complimented by the inquiry. But you're right, I'll try not to strong-arm him into the Patchteam.

Posted: 07 Apr 2005 06:55
by garf
This is getting a bit OT, isn't it?
Anyway, yes. A
looooong time ago I experimented a bit. Got as far as activating the mouse driver in DOS.
