Talk:Object Module Format (Intel): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 17:45, 26 November 2023 edit Matthiaspaul (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 137,876 edits →Is this talking about the same standard?: +a ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:02, 25 January 2024 edit undo Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs) Bots, Mass message senders 4,080,854 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26) Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: {{WikiProject ~~Computing~~banner shell\|class=~~start~~Start\|~~importance=\|software=yes\|auto=yes}}~~ {{WikiProject Computing\|importance=\|software=yes\|auto=yes}} }} ==Intel didn't even have a processor when Relocatable Object Module was being generated == Intel didn't even have a processor when Relocatable Object Module was being generated in JCL decks on early IBM's using core memory. Heck, they may be older than that.. Any way the idea was that the ROM could be linked into a calling module - adding a base address to its relocatable address. Do the research ... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:143.115.155.56\|143.115.155.56]] ([[User talk:143.115.155.56\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/143.115.155.56\|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->