Re: [cc65] range error (was: bitwise not broken in ca65?)

From: Groepaz <>
Date: 2012-01-13 17:18:55
On Thursday 12 January 2012, you wrote:
> >The range error check in older versions of the assembler did miss all
> cases where the number was negative, which is why some >constructs
> worked when they shouldn't have worked. To see why the old assembler
> version was wrong, just try lda #-300 It is silently >truncated to "$A9
> $D4". This has now been fixed, which results in a diagnostic for old
> code that exploits the behaviour.
> > I can of course add a "truncate any number until it fits" flag to the
> > assembler, but I'm pretty sure most people won't be happy with that.
> > 
> > Of course I can see your problem, and I'm very sorry for introducing the
> > error in the first place. I know that fixing it now causes trouble, but
> > I'm sure it's better this way than accepting and silently truncating
> > numbers that are out of range.
> just my few cents:
> if
> .byte 3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3
> is not compiling I find this annoying

down to the point where i am thinking about switching toolchain infact =P


Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade 
themselves that they have a better idea. 
<John Ciardi>

To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Fri Jan 13 17:19:05 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-01-13 17:19:09 CET