Extracting OS4.x API information from publicly available executables

[Trev]

Since when is reverse engineering piracy? It still irks me that the term "piracy" was co-opted by the software industry in the first place.

Of course, commenting on the actions of a few megalomaniac moderators does nothing but legitimize their stance. ;-) (In the sense that it feeds their egos.)

So, who's going to publish Undocumented Amiga OS 4?

[Trev]

@xeron

In the grand scheme of things, does it matter? The release of OS4.1 is imminent. Hell, even Hyperion's claim to ownership of the operating system is being challenged. Shouldn't *all* OS4.x related posts be removed until the law suit is resolved?

EDIT:

He's being penalized and humilitated for "guessing wrong?" Gee, that's a wonderful way to treat a fellow enthusiast.

And now I'll sit back and thumb through my copy of Andrew Schulman's Undocumented DOS, a book that ushered in a new era of competition against Microsoft.

[Trev]

There's a topic on utilitybase.com from February 2008 regarding using the OS4 SDK to write OS3 software. In that topic, there's a note about the DOS portions of the OS4 SDK including four unimplemented 64-bit APIs. Here's a quote:

The OS4 DOS 68K vector table is also complete for all
functions, including all new ones since OS3.9.
(but with null() stubs installed for the 4x 64 bit funcs)

http://utilitybase.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=3&topic=1249

This might have been covered elsewhere already. Regardless, there's certainly evidence that at least some of the 64-bit APIs were documented (in headers, binary code, or otherwise) prior to the OS4.1 announcement.