Hi! On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 03:42:19PM +0200, MagerValp wrote: > It's working fairly well, but as the 6502 mnemonics are reserved words > I can't define macros with the same name (e.g. "jmp"). Is there a > workaround for this? If not, would it be possible to add a "none" cpu > model that'd free up the reserved mnemonics? It is easily possible to allow macro names with the names of 6502 instructions. In fact, the old assembler, ca65 was partially based on, had this feature. Not allowing such macro names was a deliberate decision, because it becomes very confusing, and makes the 6502 instruction inaccessible as long as the macro is defined. A "none" CPU seems to be the better solution, but it solves just your problem, so I would like to hear more comments. Is it desirable to have macros with the names of CPU instructions? Would it be better to allow such macro names, or would it be preferable to have a "none" CPU? Maybe it would be better to call it "empty" or similar, to avoid confusion with the "none" target, which is independent of the CPU. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Thu Apr 15 11:31:47 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2004-04-15 11:31:52 CEST