Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1783Re: PseudoSam 18 Assembler To New Assembler

Expand Messages
  • richardep20002000
    Jan 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I have Kinda Left this one Hanging Because of lenght of replay
      (Thinking)

      See below


      --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, "dfnr2" <dfnr2@y...> wrote:
      > --- In cosmacelf@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <stateamuse@c...> wrote:
      >
      > I've seen 1802 code meant to compile with various assemblers with
      > slightly different syntaxes. For best utility, a new assembler may
      > want to support alternative notations where it's easy. A macro
      > facility, or a macro preprocessor would also help (perhaps GNU GASP
      > could be adapted?) Then, achieving compatibility with a specific
      > assembler would be a matter of using an include file with the right
      > compatibility macros.
      >
      > A converter is a nice idea, but could be a lot more work, and more
      > easily broken.
      >
      > > 1.Like using H' To specify Hex address? Don't like?
      >
      > Never seen it, don't like it. I've always seen 0FFH or $FF, which
      are
      > easy to parse. If you want to to save users hours of debugging
      > "weird" behavior, then the "H" operator should be case
      > insensitive--accept 0ffh as well.
      >
      H or h Is Now supported

      >
      > > 2.Like The .equ xxx,xxx format? Don't like?
      >
      > I've always seen LABEL EQU ADDR, or LABEL .EQU ADDR. A Macro
      > facility would make this a non-issue.
      >
      > > 3.Like The >>
      operator?
      >
      > IT's fine, and probably better then HIGH/LOW, but HIGH and LOW show
      up

      vote entered

      > frequently, and including them, if not too difficult, would be very
      > useful A macro facility would make this a non-issue
      >
      > > 4.Like the period in the .db .dw? Don't like?
      >
      > Either, but since both are used, it would be nice to have a flag to
      > switch between the ".XXX" and "XXX" notations for reserved words. A
      > macro facility could make this a non-issue.


      I am just trying to get an idea on what the converter should do.
      Change it to DB, leave it .DB and support it or leave it and add
      this to the source.

      .DB REPLACE DB

      I Have a REPLACE Op Code, Any OP code can be any Name Including
      Replace. If there is an better default for this let me know.
      Op Code Reverseing is also Posible. If Care is taken.

      >
      > Also, some assemblers use a "R4" notation for registers, while other
      > simply use "4" for register 4. Support for both may be helpful if
      not
      > too difficult. Again, if an "R4" macro could be defined as "4",
      then

      OP codes can be 8 charaters long.

      Support SEX R4 No operand and SEX 4 with operand.

      My AVOCET converter add's R0 EQU 0,and so on. to the source,
      because It uses R0 as an operand,but these could be remove if code
      was changed manual to the no operand version.(Remove the Spaces)

      I have seen code with macros Noted in the source, but do not know
      how they were defined.
      If this note was not there I would not know what they did.

      So I am Trying to Keep everything in the source, but adding something
      to do the same thing is Ok with me. I Just need to know more about It

      Supported Stuff Now avalible in files area, ASMnotes.txt,and OPS.txt
      Just remember this is just as of Now. 1/4/2004 11:43pm eastern.
      It may change in an hour. (LOL) Maybe not. I'm waiting on my testers
      opinions.


      Thanks Richard

      > this is a non-issue.
      >
      > Thanks for asking for votes! I'm interested to see the result,
      >
      > Dave
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic