On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:34:35AM +0200, 42Bastian Schick wrote: > Given variables may only have constants, you suggested that following > should work: "should" means of course "when implemented". Currently there is no implementation, and the "should" did just mean that I don't expect major problems with one. > In the resulting object file, I'd expect fragments like > .word start+1 > .word start+11 > because the expression-parser should see that ,,pos" is constant at both > positions > and thus simplify the expression. > > But so far it doesn't seem it does not work (the way I implemented it). Up to now, there was no reason for the assembler, to evaluate such an expression directly. Delaying evaluation means that forward and backward references can be handled the same way. Fixing backward references is easy: In function Symbol() in expr.c, just return the expression instead of generating a symbol node. Forward references need a little bit more work. I'm currently thinking about disallowing them in a first step. > But as I already said, I'll wait and see ... Ok. 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 Wed May 11 07:55:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-05-11 07:55:08 CEST