Post B5np7F9bg5veq5B7ey by dheadshot@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by dheadshot@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #B5mvVv4XsosUMb073Q by dosnostalgic@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Whoa. Microsoft released source code for 86-DOS 1.00 kernel, various PC-DOS 1.00 pre-release kernels and utilities, and the Microsoft BASIC-86 Compiler runtime library.https://github.com/DOS-History/Paterson-Listings
       
 (DIR) Post #B5n9EoplDtk9RzpENU by marcocampos@mastodon.world
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dosnostalgic Fingers crossed for MS-DOS 5.0 or 6.22 someday! 🤞
       
 (DIR) Post #B5njLhwipJNYSvfKWe by GroupNebula563@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dosnostalgic as always, the comments /changelogs do not disappoint"01/05/82  2.43  Correct over-zealous optimization in 2.42"
       
 (DIR) Post #B5np7F9bg5veq5B7ey by dheadshot@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dosnostalgicThe accompanying article ( https://thebrokenpipe.com/dos/paterson_listings/ ) talks about a #bug in the printed out code caused by a carry introduced into a rotation by an ROL CX instruction, but ROL explicitly ignores the carry, doesn't it? The author seems to be assuming it's the same as RCL CX? There must have been a different reason for Paterson reverting the code to the previous iteration because that one doesn't make sense!