| |
Pixman
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 42 |
Converting ACME code to Kick Assembler
In this code there are some confusing lines (since there are no proper ACME manuals):
http://codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:double_irq
lda #$00 ;Reload A,X,and Y
reseta1 = *-1 ;registers
ldx #$00
resetx1 = *-1
ldy #$00
resety1 = *-1
Someone on #c-64 told me = is for the current Program Counter.
But there is no equivalent to this in Kick Assembler.
Solve it with branches?
I seriously have no idea how to fix this problem.
Any suggestions?
Tnx,
Pix |
|
... 80 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Better get a bigger pack, my guess is that this might go on for days with 1. The usual namedropping argument, 2. The incbin speech, 3. The 'its so stupid' argumentation, 4. Remarks of what he will do to himself. 5. The 'its improper' argument,.... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
cute :) |
| |
TWW
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 545 |
Quote: 
LOL!
Awesome thread. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
Seriously, if someone hurts oneself with self modifying code, or addressing a low or highbyte of some mnemonic, one better stops claiming to be a coder. This is not rocket science at all, no matter if label = * + 1, label+1, label-1, labelHi or labelLo is used. It is one of the very basics. It is like discussing if one should use a label or do a bcs *+5. Both work, and no one cares, can we proceed please? |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
This thread is now about specialised new syntax for a common use-case, a-okay to discuss. Now here are my 2 cents:sta <[memPos]
stx >[memPos]
...
lda memPos:$1000 While i like the label for the argument as proposed by Slammer, i also like fairly standard syntax and semantics as known from various assemblers and also other platforms' standard assembly syntax.
The [] operator here acts similarly to x86 Intel assembly: it dereferences an address. Normally, < and > would operate on the memory address a label represents, but here, we want to operate on the memory where the address itself resides. The label refers to a pointer and is an implicit pointer itself, after all.
Now, i have a hunch that this collides with Kickass' funky syntax (or parser, for that matter), but we're discussing pure theory here now, aren't we? :) |
| |
Dr.j
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 277 |
what Bitbreaker wrote! every word i have to agree for 100% ! |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Quoting Bitbreaker no one cares, can we proceed please?
Well, thread is evidence to the contrary, and no-one's forcing you to read it..
/gets back to loader coding regardless |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
You know, i would love to see people coding on serious stuff and not just wasting their time on such basics. There's X this year, and i want some serious demos to clash there. But this thread gives me the feeling that everybody has either their demo finished or not even started yet. That would be sad. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Fair point. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Seriously, dude. If people feel like discussing things, just let them. Annoying them won't make them drop it. Also it's not like most people can sneak-code at work, but many more can discuss in forums at work. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Next |
