>>>>> "UvB" == Ullrich von Bassewitz <uz@musoftware.de> writes: UvB> A "none" CPU seems to be the better solution, but it solves just UvB> your problem, so I would like to hear more comments. Is it UvB> desirable to have macros with the names of CPU instructions? UvB> Would it be better to allow such macro names, or would it be UvB> preferable to have a "none" CPU? Maybe it would be better to call UvB> it "empty" or similar, to avoid confusion with the "none" target, UvB> which is independent of the CPU. It could be argued that an assembler coder that knows how to use macros should be allowed to shoot herself in the foot :) Or maybe something like .remove jsr to just disable certain instruc- tions? That could have been useful for the 65j02 (in the C-One boot core) where certain instructions we unavailable. -- ___ . . . . . + . . o _|___|_ + . + . + . Per Olofsson, arkadspelare o-o . . . o + MagerValp@cling.gu.se - + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 11:52:17 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2004-04-15 11:52:23 CEST