| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Kick Assembler Thread 2
The previous thread took a little long to load, so this is a new fresh one.. |
|
... 590 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11116 |
Quote:Are there any better way of doing similiar conditional assembly such like this?
use an assembler that properly supports scoping. |
| |
Pantaloon
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 124 |
i was waiting for that comment from Groepaz :) |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
I guess Groepaz is the kind of person who goes down to the store to buy a tool so he can cook an egg. The clerk sells him a frying pan and the next day he comes back complaining that the pan is a terrible pot and that he can't get the egg hard-boild!
Groepaz: I think you mean an assembler that does not support scoping, not an assembler that supports scoping properly. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11116 |
i mean exactly what i said. and no, "not the right tool for the job" does not apply here at all. hardly any other assembler is broken like this. |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 473 |
Works as designed, it seems. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11116 |
i am not doubting that at all :) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
"I got a plenty of SMC labels like Something=*-1 so my code looks like ANYTHING else but CLEAN because of this :)
How you would create that kind of label touching code? I spent just several hours just because of this..."
I guess its a matter of habit what's comfortable & clean to you. I usually do this:
smod lda #$00
sta $d020
inc smod+1
this keeps the label and the instruction on the same line *-x wont fuck up, since you cant insert extra instruction inbetween, furthermure its obvious where the label points no *+ fucking, and one label is enough to reach lo/hi / instruction.
if the branch is really close then just:
inc $d020
jmp *-3
lda #$03
adc $02
sta $02
bcc *+3
inc $03
but I only use it in very simple cases like this. if you insert an instruction and forget to update the * you're fucked. |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 473 |
Oswald, that was a good example why using *+ and *- is really error prone:
bcc *+3
inc $03
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11116 |
hey, that way debugging never becomes a bore! =) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
Quote: Oswald, that was a good example why using *+ and *- is really error prone:
bcc *+3
inc $03
*+4, got me there. I use those without knowing what happens, now I got exposed. i never know if the * refers to the instruction or the operand... and just too lazy to think about it for a minute O:-) I only use them to avoid the 125th skip label. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 61 - Next |
