HP-71B Enhanced Math LEX

[Erwin]

(08-13-2020 03:27 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 07:35 AM)Erwin Wrote:  Thanks a lot Dave … so I have to try to find a Windows PC for that … I‘ll try it the next time and will report the result here.

regards
Erwin

You should be able to do this with a Mac or Linux machine. I'll spin off a new post and give you the details.

Dave

Hi Dave,

yes I have a Mac - would be great to get some hints - to build an ‚EPROM‘

thanks a lot

[J-F Garnier]

Just to be clear, the Math Pac 2 is available as a ROM image for the Emu71 emulators (both DOS and Windows), and as a LEX file for loading into a IRAM port of a physical HP-71B.

You don't need to alter the first 8 bytes of the ROM or IRAM.

J-F

[Dave Frederickson]

(08-14-2020 07:53 AM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  Just to be clear, the Math Pac 2 is available as a ROM image for the Emu71 emulators (both DOS and Windows), and as a LEX file for loading into a IRAM port of a physical HP-71B.

You don't need to alter the first 8 bytes of the ROM or IRAM.

I will concede that the "ROM" image is available if we're following the same understanding as in the HP-71B Software IDS Volume 1, Sect. 3.6 Plug-In ROM and Independent RAM.

"The format of a plug-in ROM module is the same as for a RAM module configured as an Independent RAM, with the exception of the first eight nibbles of the module which contain the Stand Alone Module ID."

"Throughout the following discussion, the term ROM will be used as a general name for a stand alone memory module, whether it be a plug-in ROM module or an Independent RAM."

[Erwin]

(08-14-2020 09:06 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 07:53 AM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  Just to be clear, the Math Pac 2 is available as a ROM image for the Emu71 emulators (both DOS and Windows), and as a LEX file for loading into a IRAM port of a physical HP-71B.

You don't need to alter the first 8 bytes of the ROM or IRAM.

I will concede that the "ROM" image is available if we're following the same understanding as in the HP-71B Software IDS Volume 1, Sect. 3.6 Plug-In ROM and Independent RAM.

"The format of a plug-in ROM module is the same as for a RAM module configured as an Independent RAM, with the exception of the first eight nibbles of the module which contain the Stand Alone Module ID."

"Throughout the following discussion, the term ROM will be used as a general name for a stand alone memory module, whether it be a plug-in ROM module or an Independent RAM."

Hello, so as far as I understand it makes no difference how to define the math module? I‘m wondering about this - makes no sense - or am I wrong?

best regards
Erwin

[Dave Frederickson]

(08-20-2020 08:11 PM)Erwin Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 09:06 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  I will concede that the "ROM" image is available if we're following the same understanding as in the HP-71B Software IDS Volume 1, Sect. 3.6 Plug-In ROM and Independent RAM.

"The format of a plug-in ROM module is the same as for a RAM module configured as an Independent RAM, with the exception of the first eight nibbles of the module which contain the Stand Alone Module ID."

"Throughout the following discussion, the term ROM will be used as a general name for a stand alone memory module, whether it be a plug-in ROM module or an Independent RAM."

Hello, so as far as I understand it makes no difference how to define the math module?

It makes no difference as long as you don't plan on running the Service Module Plug-in ROM diagnostic. In that case the diagnostic reports an error as the image doesn't have ROM checksums as defined in the IDS.
As an alternative, the "PorT" command PTTEST$ from the CMT TOOLS can be used to verify the IRAM/EPROM checksum.

[Erwin]

(08-20-2020 08:34 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:11 PM)Erwin Wrote:  Hello, so as far as I understand it makes no difference how to define the math module?

It makes no difference as long as you don't plan on running the Service Module Plug-in ROM diagnostic. In that case the diagnostic reports an error as the image doesn't have ROM checksums as defined in the IDS.
As an alternative, the "PorT" command PTTEST$ from the CMT TOOLS can be used to verify the IRAM/EPROM checksum.

Thanks to all so I let it as LEX file in the IRAM … best regards Erwin

[J-F Garnier]

Short update: the final version 2B is available on my page.
I didn’t get any feedback or bug report for the beta release, so there is no functional change, just the VER$ and the compliance to the HP ROM image format (to avoid any additional steps)

A 2C version may come later, but not before 2021. I'm working on an other project right now.

J-F

[Dave Frederickson]

(09-27-2020 06:25 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  Short update: the final version 2B is available on my page.

Let the EPROM burning begin.

[Albert Chan]

(04-27-2020 09:42 AM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  A little challenge for you : during my tests I found a minor problem in some of the new keywords of the previous test version (2b1, see post above). I didn't fix it yet (so still in 2b2, will fix it in a later version) and your mission, would you accept it, is to find the problem...
It's not a major problem, it will not crash your HP71 nor make your big engineering calculations completely fail, but still this is not fully correct and so it may be called a bug.
Hint: the HP75 and Series 80 don't have (and *can't* have) the same problem with these keywords...

It is almost a full year. Time flies ...
What was the bug ?
Is it fixed now ?

[J-F Garnier]

(03-17-2021 09:00 PM)Albert Chan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 09:42 AM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  A little challenge for you : during my tests I found a minor problem in some of the new keywords of the previous test version (2b1, see post above). I didn't fix it yet (so still in 2b2, will fix it in a later version) and your mission, would you accept it, is to find the problem...
It's not a major problem, it will not crash your HP71 nor make your big engineering calculations completely fail, but still this is not fully correct and so it may be called a bug.
Hint: the HP75 and Series 80 don't have (and *can't* have) the same problem with these keywords...

It is almost a full year. Time flies ...
What was the bug ?
Is it fixed now ?

I almost forgot it... No, actually it is noted in my todo list but forgot to fix it in the final 2B version.
The problem is: finding the min element of an array made of Inf values incorrectly returns 9.999..E499 instead of Inf:
>DIM A(3)
>MAT A=(INF)
>AMIN(A)
9.99999999999E499
Same with MINAB and similar problem with -Inf and AMAX/MINAB. Not a big deal.

I recently identified a more serious bug, that was present since version 2A too:
raising a complex value to the real power -2 produces an incorrect result.
Z^(-2,0) was ok but Z^(-2) was wrong (computed as Z^2 instead).
This was caused by the changes I did to manage the z^2 operation as z*z in the version 2A.
It is fixed now in revision 2B7 (MATH2B7).

Thanks for your interest, Albert!

J-F