| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
Assembler with dynamic symbol creation
I have read some documentation for an assembler that allowed labels or symbols to be created dynamically, basically by concatenating strings. Which assembler was that? |
|
... 15 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1932 |
AFAIR Dreamass supports that as well. |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Quoting doynaxIndeed but also note that CA65 has scopes which often can achieve the same ends in a cleaner way, at least when operating within a single compilation unit. Doynax got a good point. Doing things with scopes often gives cleaner solutions. |
| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
Quoting doynaxIndeed but also note that CA65 has scopes which often can achieve the same ends in a cleaner way, at least when operating within a single compilation unit.
How would scopes solve the problem? |
| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
Creating a meta-list of addresses where the data is defined and read from the list where addresses should be used would work for my simple case. Does assemblers handle this without requiring data and code to be defined in a certain source code order? I think Kickassembler does. How about the others? |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
I don't know the functionality of CA65, but in general the solutions I have seen involving scoping seem better than those where you generate numbered labels to one big global scope. Scoping is also better than putting labels into a list yourself. In KickAss the scoping solution works well for accessing labels in executed macro calls, and I'am planning to expand the functionality to loops as well. So accessing the label of one loop from another could look like this:
.const count=25
loop1: .for(var i=0; i<count; i++) {
lda #i
sta loop2[i].color+1
}
loop2: .for(var i=0; i<count; i++) {
color: lda #0
sta $d020
}
Today you have to put your labels in a list yourself, but I find the above better.
Edit: Scoping solution = you access the scope instance of a given iteration of the loop |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 480 |
Example of doynax translated:
smc_store .segment name
\{name}_value = *+1
lda #$00
\{name}_addr = *+1
sta @w$0000
.endm
*= $1000
#smc_store test
sta test_value
But don't do it, this is evil ;)
smc_store .macro
value = *+1
lda #$00
addr = *+1
sta @w$0000
.endm
*= $1000
test #smc_store
sta test.value
Somewhat better.
Hypnosis: Later 64tass versions tolerate "wrong" definition and use ordering.
*= $1000
.1000 4c 06 10 jmp $1006 jmp l[0]
.1003 4c 07 10 jmp $1007 jmp l[1]
=[$1006,$1007] l = [b1, b2]
.1006 ea nop b1 nop
.1007 ea nop b2 nop
Unsurprisingly it has suboptimal performance compared to proper ordering.
Slammer: I was thinking about this sort of list generation some time ago for .rept when it was still hard to implement it. Now it'd be much easier, but I can't think of a compelling use for it in my sources (yet). Even if it'd be available now probably I'd still write the above example like this:
*= $1000
count = 25
.for i = 0, i < count, i = i + 1
lda #i
sta (+)+1
.section speedcode
+ lda #0
sta $d020
.send
.next
.dsection speedcode ; right after the modifier
This compiles the two code parts in tandem so an anonymous label is good enough. Results in:
.1000 a9 01 lda #$00 lda #i
.1002 8d 7e 10 sta $107e sta (+)+1
.107d a9 00 lda #$00 + lda #0
.107f 8d 20 d0 sta $d020 sta $d020
.1005 a9 01 lda #$01 lda #i
.1007 8d 83 10 sta $1083 sta (+)+1
.1082 a9 00 lda #$00 + lda #0
.1084 8d 20 d0 sta $d020 sta $d020
...
In case of more labels it'd name them properly and stick in a .block scope to avoid the symbol collisions. |
| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
Interesting use of sections! |
| |
Hypnosis
Registered: Mar 2015
Posts: 36 |
Quoting SlammerScoping solution = you access the scope instance of a given iteration of the loop
Ah, that was the missing part in my puzzle. I haven't seen this before. |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Soci: I prefer the scoping solution so I will stick to that, but I guess its a matter of taste. And nobody says you can't do both. Seems like we pretty much agree on scoping for macro executions...
.macro smc_store() {
.label value =*+1
lda #$00
.label addr = *+1
sta.a $0000
}
*= $1000
test: smc_store()
sta test.value |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 275 |
at the moment i doing it like this with kickass:
.const count=25
loop1: .for(var i=0; i<count; i++) {
lda #i
sta loop2+1+i*5
}
loop2: .for(var i=0; i<count; i++) {
color: lda #0
sta $d020
} |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
