From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-09-25 10:51:26
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 06:16:50AM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> so is there a possibility to make ca65 ouput the "preprocessed" assembler
> code? something like the list-file, but in a format that can be assembled by
> ca65 again?
No, sorry. It is possible but not easy, so in my opinion the effort/usefulness
ratio is too bad.
> tjam, then for a totally different thingy.... a compiler option that would
> make the compiler threat "int" as "signed long" (ie 32 vs 16 bit ints) could
> be really useful when you are porting code and are wondering why the hell it
> doesnt work as intended...if it changes behaviour with 32 bit ints, you know
> whats the problem atleast :=P (no idea how deep the 16bit thing is hardcoded
> into the compiler though, making it an option might be anything from easy to
> impossible depending on the implementation :=P)
Same as above: Possible but too much work just to have a small debugging help.
Problem is that this influences pointer arithmetic as well, because currently
the result of ptr-ptr is an int (which is not standard compliant but ok for a
6502 platform).
> ps...oh and i noticed another thing....on your FAQ page there is a big
> paragraph about the .org directive and the difference between ca65/ld65 and
> other simplier assemblers, but yet it doesnt tell how to exactly "emulate"
> their simplier behaviour (and your suggestion is somewhat misleading too
> IMHO) .... since this is something ppl tend to ask me every now and then, why
> not add this snippet ... :o)
Well, it is my personal opinion that using the emulation features to mimic
other assemblers is a Bad Thing(tm). And your text is rather specific, so I
don't think adding it to the FAQ is a good idea. If I start adding it, I will
also have to add information on how to convert from xa, xasm, acme and all
other assemblers out in the wild.
But how about a new section in the ca65 docs "Porting sources from other
assemblers"? The ca65 docs would be the perfect place for such a text, adding
information about other assemblers is no problem, because there's no reason to
be brief, and I can add a pointer to the FAQ.
> oh and in ca65 docs you suggest using "pc_assignment" for emulating xa65...
> are you sure about this? in TASS (and several crossassembler that are clones
> of it) atleast a programmcounter assignment really moves the programcounter
> (ie, both run AND load address) and not only the (run-)address (eh tricky
> terminology here...so whats the correct term for "the address we are
> assembling to" and "the address we are currently assembling at" ? :=P)
Assignment to PC with ".feature pc_assignment" enabled is the same as using a
.org directive. It may not be the same as a PC assignment in TASM, but it is
rather difficult to mimic every feature in every assembler out there.
> tjam...that reminds me of the "ca65 vs other assemblers" table i have started
> once...maybe i should bring it into a useable state too :=P
How about adding it to the same section in the ca65 docs?
> (can anyone
> recommend a way to layout a large table? its currently in html, but not
> really useful due to its size - lots of scrolling involved etc :/)
Split it into several tables that each have the same layout, but do compare
just one assembler to ca65. This way, we can have a section "Porting sources
from other assemblers", with one assembler per subsection, and each subsection
can contain such a table. The only problem is that I haven't managed to create
tables using LinuxDoc until now:-(
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 : 2003-09-25 10:51:36 CEST