5 Jan
2007
5 Jan
'07
9:44 p.m.
To add to the general confusion, regular (level 0) ofm files report
(OFMLEVEL D 1)
at the top of ofm2opl's output,
Yes, that was it, and if you corrected it and ran opl2ofm on the corrected output, it choked because it believed it was reading an ofm level 65535 (or so); in the sources it was obvious there was a spurious ±1 at some stage... but interestingly enough, the whole ofm2opl / opl2ofm / etc. bundle was coherent with its own output (but not with the original input). If you're using Debian, I believe the binary is patched thanks to a bug-report by my friend Joël Riou :-)