From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-09-04 13:39:14
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:21:08PM +0200, Christian Krüger wrote:
> Hmm, I have tested /here/ 2.9.1. I think that is the problem!?
da65 was not really official in the 2.9 versions. There is a comment somewhere
that there is a disassembler, but that's it. No mentioning in the
announcements, no docs, nothing. And then there was my posting to the list
three weeks ago, which says:
I've tied up one more loose knot and completed the disassembler to a
degree where it is usable for the general public. The disassembler named
da65 did exist for several releases now, but was incomplete and
documentation was missing. Today, I would still call it incomplete (as
usual I have more ideas), but it should be usable and (very important) it
has documentation. So if you could make use of it, please grab the
snapshot, give it a try and me some feedback.
So I didn't realize that after these statements, anyone would really use the
version from 2.9.x :-)
> Ok - I mean undefined instructions. Better?
Ok. But as I have stated before, the undefined opcodes aren't disassembled as
NOP but using .byte xxx. For me it is easier to spot regions where .byte is
intermixed with code than to look for a '!' somewhere in a line. We can also
talk about adding something like '!', but I think this gets messy quite soon,
because one would also need to mark instructions that are available in the
65SC02 but not in the 65C02. And once there is support for the 65816, things
become even more difficult.
> I will read the doc before asking dumb questions.
Well, actually the questions have been smart, it's just that they are answered
in the docs:-)
Please have a look at the disassembler in the snapshot. If there are still
things missing, we can start over.
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 13:39:25 CEST