Search found 606 matches
- Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:50 pm
- Forum: Casio fx-9860 SDK
- Topic: Hitachi compiler options
- Replies: 13
- Views: 45055
Re: Hitachi compiler options
The last few pages ofcakeisalie5 wrote:Also, is there a manual with everything Hmake supports in it?
"Renesas High-performance Embedded Workshop V.4.05 Manual"
contain the maximum information about HMAKE I could find up to now.
- Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:09 am
- Forum: Casio fx-9860 SDK
- Topic: Hitachi compiler options
- Replies: 13
- Views: 45055
Re: Hitachi compiler options
Yes. __HITACHI__ (1) and __HITACHI_VERSION__ (0x0600).cakeisalie5 wrote:By the way (sorry if that's not the correct topic to deal with this), does Hitachi's compiler define any compiler-specific macro, something like __HITACHI__?
- Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:53 pm
- Forum: News & Announcements
- Topic: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
- Replies: 61
- Views: 396492
Re: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
The OS checksum:
At 0xA0B5FFF8
0xA0020000..0xA0B1FFFF + 0xA0B5FEF0..0xA0B5FFF7
(As with fx-CG20 OS 2.02)
At 0xA0B5FFF8
0xA0020000..0xA0B1FFFF + 0xA0B5FEF0..0xA0B5FFF7
(As with fx-CG20 OS 2.02)
- Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:30 am
- Forum: Calculator Hacking/Modding Discussions
- Topic: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
- Replies: 11
- Views: 39442
Re: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
Found this today online, and as you told me OHP was only possible on USB, I'm quite surprised... is there any way to do OHP on serial? They swapped the physical port order on the PCB with the fx-9860GII types. The calculator pictured here is a fx-9860G connected via USB to a OH 9860. But indeed I s...
- Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:47 pm
- Forum: News & Announcements
- Topic: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
- Replies: 61
- Views: 396492
Re: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
The fx-CG50 OS is very similar to the fx-CG20 OSes. I am a bit disappointed. Looks as if there are no secrets to unravel. Apart from the RAM-address there seem to be no grave differences. INSIGHT, NOTEVIEW, FARGOAL and even a relatively complicated UBC-tool work well (OK, I wrongly used 0x88000000 a...
- Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:20 pm
- Forum: News & Announcements
- Topic: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
- Replies: 61
- Views: 396492
Re: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
Do you know if anyone knows where the table of the names and icons of the built-in add ins is stored in the OS? And how to get that offset? I want to make a program which can edit the icons of the 2.0 firmware to match the new white ones. Basically I'm trying to patch OS 2.02 to be a fake OS 3.0 wi...
- Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:01 pm
- Forum: General
- Topic: 3 pin data transmission between two fx-CP400
- Replies: 3
- Views: 8432
Re: 3 pin data transmission between two fx-CP400
You have to activate "receive" on the receiving calculator before starting "transmit" on the other calculator.
I just checked it between my CP400 and CP330plus.
I just checked it between my CP400 and CP330plus.
- Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:04 am
- Forum: News & Announcements
- Topic: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
- Replies: 61
- Views: 396492
Re: Prizm fx-CG50 announced for spring 2017
No. Syscall 1e6 returns 0xAC000000.AmazoNKA wrote:Sorry for being ignorant with this type of things...
Would add-in with vram address being hardcoded as 0xA8000000 still work on fx-cg50 please?
- Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:21 pm
- Forum: Calculator Hacking/Modding Discussions
- Topic: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
- Replies: 11
- Views: 39442
Re: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
Also, for what I've seen, Projector and ScreenReceiver are the same things, and ScreenCapture is basically just about sending one OHP packet then going offline. Is there any difference between Projector and ScreenReceiver, maybe in the syscalls it uses to read screens? Does USB_CaptureDisplay also ...
- Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:42 am
- Forum: Calculator Hacking/Modding Discussions
- Topic: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
- Replies: 11
- Views: 39442
Re: Syscalls (serial communication, ...)
...you added the checksum member, is this member never read/written by any syscall or always generated before sending or at reception, without sending to the user? (was this structure member a supposition that, in the end, was not correct?) The Comm_Prepare****Packet-syscalls set this byte to zero....