| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
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....
|
| |
null
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 645 |
ACME for crossdev and whatever version of TASS is built into the default RR/MMC-Replay ROM on the real thing. |
| |
Stone
Registered: Oct 2006
Posts: 172 |
ca65 (customized)
Most of the parts in our (Offence/Fairlight/Prosonix) demos are completely stand-alone and are called as subroutines from the loader. They are delivered to whoever is doing the linking (Pantaloon in most cases) as binary files, so there is no need to enforce a single assembler. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
not that using different assemblers is a problem.... with proper assemblers =)
acme, ca65, 64tass, xa (this order)
the framework i have been using for the last demos allows for different assemblers, packers, loaders being used on a per part basis. |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
DreamAss and Emacs, but.. Haven't we had this "discussion" already? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
not today |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Quote:A project with acme, dreamass, dasm, c6510, kickass all in a mix, is no problem this way. Kickass however handles the handover of external information a bit different, so no -Dlabel=foo stuff available there, but integration is doable after finding out the differences.
Bitbreaker: If there are features that would make integration easier, feel free to add it to the wishlist. Its in the RetroAssembler group. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2246 |
Quote: 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)
- ACME
- larger productions: makes things easier if everyone uses the same, but normally someone experienced enough to code for such a production is also skilled enough to press CTRL+H and adjust syntax, e.g. from KickAss to ACME, has become even easier since ACME also accepts +/++/+++/-/--/--- labels |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Quote: DreamAss and Emacs, but.. Haven't we had this "discussion" already?
Eh, not that recently. Was wondering what current practices are, and the "Coding on a PC for the 64?" thread is way broader in scope than the two questions above.
(and oi, no text editor wars under this topic please!) |
| |
soci
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 480 |
64tass, for a long time now. |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 686 |
64tass |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 22 - Next |
