Hi! On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0200, A. Fachat wrote: > BTW: where do these unnamed labels come from? Especially, as you mention > yourself, that they are such a mess in larger code bases. I haven't seen > anything like this before. There's an assembler out there that has this sort of labels. Don't ask me which one, because I forgot that. As discussions about 6502 assemblers usually go, someone probably mentioned that his pet assembler has these unnamed labels and that in his humble opinion any assembler without unnamed labels is an utter piece of sh*t and not even worth trying. So if I didn't want to maintain such an assembler, I had to add unnamed labels. Or something like that ... > FYI: I investigated them because from time to time I find some piece of code > written for ca65 that does not compile with xa65, so I enhance xa's > "compatibility mode". Unnamed labels were used in a Commodore PET DOS wedge I > recently got, so I had a look... Now that's funny, because ca65 has quite some stuff builtin to cope with sources written for other assemblers. If we try hard enough we will end up with every assembler being able to translate every assembler source:-) 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 Mon Jul 30 21:19:27 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-07-30 21:19:30 CEST