BUA binary

[Peter Gargano]

I wrote:

> I'm at the stage where I have removed the obvious typo, translation
> and other errors you often find in a disassembly.

I want to point out that BUA_HAC represents incredible value for money
(you pay nothing...) I think that the author(s) of this document should
be commended for the work they have made publicly available. I was trying
to say that it takes a while to disassemble/comment code - it's quite
understandable that the odd label will get trashed, a few extra lines
of code get duplicated, etc... (plus to/from PDF can zap stuff too!)

Again, I take my hat off to the BUA authors.

> But this has raised doubts as to whether the .BIN file is correct,
> or the hac listing is correct.

Well, after getting a couple of different versions of the BUA
binaries, from a couple of sources, I can say that the binaries
all have the same code - just the tables are different.  This means
that the few differences, in the HAC listing, may (or may not?) be 
fixes for a buggy BUA, or may (or may not?) be buggy changes to a
correct BUA - I'll need to understand these differences before I 
can comment further. At least, now I know which is the version that's
running in lots of 'Vettes, buggy or not!

BTW - can anyone make use of this "clean" listing?  If so, mail me
off-list (so I don't swamp this forum with "me too"s !) at:

  mailto:peter at mail.techedge.com.au?subject=BUA_HACK_-_I_can_use_it_too

with just your name - this'll give me some incentive to pull out the
existing info, scattered throughout the listing, showing variable (RAM)
usage - this being another key piece of info to understand how the code 
works.

Why am I doing this all? So I can understand how my own 1227808's code, 
which may or may not be based on BUA, works!

regards,
-- 
Peter Gargano