[Coco] 512k test

[Arthur Flexser]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca> wrote

> I just looked at the disassembly, and while I don't understand all what's
> going on (like why it compares twice to #$3F), I see that a LPOKE or LPEEK
> alone is not a sufficient RAM test.

The disassembly of LPEEK I have (I'm not sure if it is the same as the
Unraveled one) has the second check of the segment number commented as
"Useless", so I'd assume it had no actual reason to be there.

Art

: