Jun 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM
...no. No you don't. You never deserve a crash. Plus, putting in an out-of-bounds value doesn't imply "dumb"; it could be simply a typing error.DragonBoots said:Bounds-checking is not required; if you're dumb enough to OOB an argument, then, yeah. You deserve the crash.
Actually, Noxid, could I have an explanation of why this is? DragonBoots tried to explain, but he didn't really seem to understand either.DragonBoots said:But because of the way it works out, the last few don't save properly cm.
A tad inefficient, really; I don't see what's wrong with my look-up table suggestion. Still, I guess it works.DragonBoots said:And the 'system variables' (variables 0000-0005) are recalculated and updated per-frame.
No difference at the assembly level, yes. However, there's a good reason to make them different at the TSC level. There's literally no reason to ever change these variables, because it has no effect; any change will be overwritten, and it won't actually change the value it points to. Why not make them read-only? And if you can make them read-only, why not have them point directly to the values?Noxid said:Anyway, there's no difference between these so-called 'editable variables' and anything else; it's all just RAM somewhere.