From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-09-04 11:43:27
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:11:15AM +0200, Christian Krüger wrote:
> But also the defined 65C02 opcodes produce byte literals:
It seems we're talking about different programs:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
uz_at_trixie:~/src/cc65/src/da65$ cat test.s
.setcpu "65C02"
L1: lda ($02)
bit $02
bbr6 $02, L1
uz_at_trixie:~/src/cc65/src/da65$ ../ca65/ca65 test.s
uz_at_trixie:~/src/cc65/src/da65$ ../ld65/ld65 -t none -o test test.o
uz_at_trixie:~/src/cc65/src/da65$ da65 --cpu 65C02 test
; da65 V2.9.5 - (C) Copyright 2000-2003 Ullrich von Bassewitz
; Input file: test
; Page: 1
.setcpu "65C02"
LFFF9: lda ($02)
bit $02
bbr6 $02,LFFF9
uz_at_trixie:~/src/cc65/src/da65$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BTW: As you allready know, I would like to differ between 65C02 and
> 65SC02 *especially* when I have to disassemble something...
Why don't you read the docs? The disassembler does exactly what you want, and
this is documented.
> When I have binaries for the 65C02 where I cannot differ between
> code and data, it would help very much if I can detect invalid
> instructions by inspecting such comments.
So why not just look for
.byte $xx
as I have explained in my last mail?
See http://oxyron.net/graham/opcodesc02.html.
> Because there are no invalid instructions for the 65C02, the occurrence
> of 'unusual 6502 instructions' would be a good indicator...
Please read my last mail again. There are lots of invalid instructions for the
65C02. Why not have a look at the opcode table?
> Annother feature I like to have is commenting the code with the
> characters which are represented with the binary code to differ data
> efficient from code. I think this is quite usual for disassemblers.
Please read the docs. This feature is already available and documented.
> BTW2: After you mentioned the generated *.dis file I found it. (I never
> looked for it before - at least a generation msg from da65 would be nice...)
Please read the docs. The naming scheme (using xx.dis if no input file given)
was clearly documented (I've changed it a few minutes ago, so I know what was
written there before).
I would be really glad, if people would read the docs. This is the third mail
in a row where I have to point to the docs, which means that the quota for "in
the docs" questions for the next two weeks is already used up completely.
I don't like writing documentation, but I'm doing it because I hope it will
save me the effort of answering always the same questions. I'm even trying to
keep the doc files current when making changes to the development code. Now,
if I first put a lot of work into the documentation and later on have to
answer these questions anyway, I will get distracted more from writing code
than if I had not written any documentation at all. So PLEASE READ THE
DOCUMENTATION! It's there for a purpose.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-09-04 11:43:42 CEST