| |
Pixman
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 42 |
Converting ACME code to Kick Assembler
In this code there are some confusing lines (since there are no proper ACME manuals):
http://codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:double_irq
lda #$00 ;Reload A,X,and Y
reseta1 = *-1 ;registers
ldx #$00
resetx1 = *-1
ldy #$00
resety1 = *-1
Someone on #c-64 told me = is for the current Program Counter.
But there is no equivalent to this in Kick Assembler.
Solve it with branches?
I seriously have no idea how to fix this problem.
Any suggestions?
Tnx,
Pix |
|
... 80 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Quote: Quote:My assembler optimizes NOP's and BIT $EA away for shorter and faster code
sounds like a great feature to have - enabled by default!
Of course it will be enabled by default, is there any other way?
You might be able to disable it with a convoluted mix of C++'14, LIPS, Brainfuck and a few others, I'm still working on a completely fucked up syntax ;)
Command line options won't help either, those will just screw with other command line options in a completely non-logical way.
Crap, maybe I should I actually write this, sounds like fun :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11107 |
you could simply omit ALL $ea bytes in the output! |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Quote: you could simply omit ALL $ea bytes in the output!
That's the basic operating mode, also $24, wouldn't be the first time some lamer wrote `BIT $24` while that clearly takes bytes and more importantly, cycles.
And JMP $ea31 would become JMP $xx31, almost missed that one. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11107 |
and $XX calls a lisp sub procedure? genious! |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1377 |
Quoting PerplexQuoting ChristopherJam.dsb <-*,0 ;-)
What I like about this one is that it assembles just fine with the smiley included. Unless you're using KA of course. // Insert apropriate smiley here
Glad someone noticed! |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1377 |
Quoting Groepazand $XX calls a lisp sub procedure? genious!
Damn Greenspun... |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
.dsb <-*,0
awesome. never thought of doing it like that. had a 3 line version for native tasm. (dont ask what it was) |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Quoting KrillThis thread is now about specialised new syntax for a common use-case, a-okay to discuss. Now here are my 2 cents:sta <[memPos]
stx >[memPos]
...
lda memPos:$1000 While i like the label for the argument as proposed by Slammer, i also like fairly standard syntax and semantics as known from various assemblers and also other platforms' standard assembly syntax.
The [] operator here acts similarly to x86 Intel assembly: it dereferences an address. Normally, < and > would operate on the memory address a label represents, but here, we want to operate on the memory where the address itself resides. The label refers to a pointer and is an implicit pointer itself, after all.
Now, i have a hunch that this collides with Kickass' funky syntax (or parser, for that matter), but we're discussing pure theory here now, aren't we? :)
No collisions. Things like that could be achieved by a grammar rule for less than and braces combined (<[ID] or something) and a precedence rule. But yes, I guess it is purely theoretical.
Good to see you are having fun guys :-) |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Sure had some fun, sorry ;)
But back to the topic at hand: a syntax like <[foo] to me parses as indexing, like in C, Java, Python and others. It also adds more operator overloading, which in my opinion isn't a good idea. Just look at current C++: you need to join a monastery for thirty years just to study it properly.
So I would suggest being very explicit about it, using for example Python-like decorators, or just using good old +1/+2 which everyone can understand (which obviously has my preference).
Oh, and by the way, braces are {}, brackets are []. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2837 |
Quoting Compyx<[foo] to me parses as indexing, like in C, Java, Python and others. It also adds more operator overloading Brackets for dereferencing is a pretty old concept in various assembly languages, and possibly pre-dates C and all its descendants (sorry, too late/lazy now to look it up). Plus in assembly, array subscripts are expressed by +/- and not brackets, as you know. :) And it's not really overloading operators, it's modifying them. Or simply using distinct operators, if thought as <symbol vs <[symbol]. But it seems like wordier operators (or pseudo-ops in asm jargon) are preferred by Slammer. So yeah, symbol.lo and symbol.hi, fine enough. And +1/+2 is fine enough alright, but that's not the point here :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Next |
