On Thursday 15 April 2004 11:31, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > 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. i would like to be able to "overload" names of regular cpu instructions with macros....would be very useful for the pcengine stuff (to implement some missing mnemonics with macros).... a cpu "none" target seems to be only the second best solution from that point of view (it would require implementing ALL mnemonics in macros, not just those that changed) gpz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 16:31:27 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2004-04-15 16:31:33 CEST