| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1378 |
Assembler preferences.
Two questions:
- what's everyone using these days?
- on large productions, do groups tend to enforce a single assembler for the entire project, or is the code base a bit heterogenous?
I'd like to keep this discussion purely focussed on assemblers; please leave code generators, loader toolchains etc for that other thread.
(as for me, I'm still using xa65 for most projects) |
|
... 204 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 421 |
@saimo: I love that :) Could this be ported to JS? I make a lot of prototypes in JS (Coffescript actually) and it would be nice to convert them to gradually into Assembly and then output it as .asm file by the browser :) |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1989 |
Quote: @saimo: I love that :) Could this be ported to JS? I make a lot of prototypes in JS (Coffescript actually) and it would be nice to convert them to gradually into Assembly and then output it as .asm file by the browser :)
That's exactly how I code my complex parts. Start with java code, then gradually replace each function with assembly (in java) and a crude CPU/VIC emulation to verify the correctness. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1627 |
@Saimo: ACME is a 6502/6510 assembler. Not for 68k like devpac etc. |
| |
saimo
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 36 |
@Digger
Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like you have something quite different in mind. My stuff does not compile C into assembly (so it doesn't allow to do prototyping in C), and does not output an assembly source. It's simple, but it's kind of weird to explain, so here are more details:
* all I have is a bunch of C files that constitute the framework;
* a C64 program consists of one or more C sources that include some of the framework files;
* the C sources define all the assembly code by means of C functions and macros (f.ex. ldai(0); is the equivalent of lda #0);
* I compile the sources with GCC, which generates an AmigaOS executable;
* I run the AmigaOS executable, which generates the C64 executable.
@Frantic
You've just exposed my ignorance about C64 assemblers :p
Sorry, I took a trip down the memory lane... |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
saimo, congrats, thats a terribly masochistic way of doing it. :) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1378 |
Quote: Quoting ChristopherJamon large productions, do groups tend to enforce a single assembler for the entire project, or is the code base a bit heterogenous? As others said already, there is no need to enforce The One Assembler. And why would there be? :) Given the plethora of assembler preferences, no demo coded by many coders would get finished. And already the choice of loader usually gives you the need to work with a second assembler, albeit only once to build the loader with your preferred options.
Good point that enforcing a standard would exclude any coders that didn't wish to switch.
I guess I was thinking it might simplify the build process, or at least make it easier to wrangle linking the handover between parts. (I'm curious as to whether any multiparters use a common kernel for juggling IRQs etc, but that's a whole 'nother topic).
Must admit, it's ca65's linker that's had me considering switching away from xa - as it is I occasionally resort to using a small Python script to parse the .lst from one prg to generate symbols to include into another .a65
Oh, and it also looks like it'd be saner for building and including code targeted for relocation (e.g. to zero page or the disk drive) if I switched to ca65. The hacks I use to get xa to do that are not my favourite thing. |
| |
saimo
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 36 |
Quote: saimo, congrats, thats a terribly masochistic way of doing it. :)
@Oswald
LOL
Indeed it bothers me a bit to have to write all those () and ;, but the power, freedom and flexibility I get from the rest outweight the nuisance by a long margin. |
| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
@saimo: Interesting and odd solution to the problem!
I rolled my own assembler. |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 473 |
Writing the instructions directly into the C source to create the desired output is way too easy ;)
Instead of doing that I wrote C program which reads in various text/binary files to describe the output. This way I gained freedom from syntactic limitations of the compiler too. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 500 |
So much syntactic sugar and brainwank for so few releases :-D |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 - Next |
