| |
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....
|
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
The game's called "Barnsley Badger", some kind of Monty on the Run clone. Read about it on the Hyperion 64 page on Facebook. |
| |
saimo
Registered: Aug 2009
Posts: 36 |
Quoting KrillQuoting saimoIndeed it bothers me a bit to have to write all those () and ; I've been wondering why you don't use preprocessor macros to get rid of those (at least for the opcodes with implied arguments), so you'd write "txa" instead of "txa();" using a simple "#define txa txa();".
Your observation makes sense, but unfortunately I can only say that I could not have lived with the syntactical inconsitency :p (No kidding, that's really the reason I went that route; but, yes, that solution is tempting.) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1378 |
Quoting saimo F.ex., it is possible to include a binary file, analyze it, and generate code depending on the results of the analysis.
Well yes, this is what I usually do with some Python that spits out some assembler to include in my sources. But I can see the merit in having a more integrated system :) |
| |
fieserWolF
Registered: May 2003
Posts: 3 |
I use ACME because I like the name. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 554 |
I wonder, 3 years on, what everyone uses now?
I know most will probably say "the same as 2016.. if it ain't broke" etc ... but I wonder.
Personally, I'm using KickAss. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1627 |
the same as 2016.. |
| |
T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Quoting Franticthe same as 2016..
Yup, nothing has changed here either. |
| |
TWW
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 541 |
same same... |
| |
oziphantom
Registered: Oct 2014
Posts: 478 |
64tass is now even better than it was back then, still the best, and now that I have function identification and break out working, I can now debug at the function level in VICE PDB Debugger.. |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 473 |
Quote:
the same as 2016..
Yup, nothing has changed here either.
same, same...
I've got fed up with the limitations and gave in last month. I've stopped using 64tass 1.45 for compiling IDEDOS 0.90 and cleaned up the sources to use a more modern assembler. I'm using a recent version of 64tass 1.54 now. True story.
I think this thread starts to get exiting. (not) |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 - Next |
