daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (02/12/88)
> After 2 days looking,testing and using assempro, I have to say that : I recently played with AssemPro for a week in order to review it for Amiga Sentry. I found pretty much the same kind of things... > - XREF/XDEF can be simulated by using SLABEL/ILABEL . > For example, a SMALL.LIB (small amiga.lib that can be found on one > of the fish disk) can be created using the same trick. > Assembling All the _lvo offsets and declaring them as SLABEL (XDEF) > and then using them using ILABEL (XREF) . > Advantage : takes less space on the disk (so a bigger work disk). > the assembling is faster. (the Offsets being pre-assembled.) Also, modules can be simulated via INCLUDE. This is because labels in INCLUDEd files are local to that file, unless you say otherwise. AssemPro probably runs near as fast as most linkers on the Amiga, so this isn't so bad, at least as long as you're only dealing with assembly language. And all source code of course. > - The text editor is really primitive, I miss EMACS .However the search and > replace option is really powerfull (wich is proportionally complicated). I don't know if I'd call it "really" primitive. Certainly not on a par with Emacs in any of it'd better flavors, but in the same ballpark as EDT. In fact, it seems inspired by EDT. It offers Keypad editing commands as well as menu selected ones, and a command language very much the same flavor as EDT's nokeypad mode. You can't do macros, but you can attach strings of these commands to function keys. If they let you at the control keys as well you could do a simple Emacs emulation, as I've done way back when I had to use EDT. It does at least let you edit multiple documents onscreen, and cut/paste between them (though not using the Amiga's clipboard). The windowing feature is better than all Amiga Emacs I've seen so far; they all do split screening just like on a VT100. Much too weak for a proper Amiga environment. My main caution on this package is that you won't be able to properly mix it with other languages, since you can't link. I suppose your C program could LoadSeg() something created with AssemPro, or call up an AssemPro generated library, but you're not going to call AssemPro functions directly from C. This may be a minor quip, though, since both C compilers already come with Assemblers. -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (02/13/88)
In article <3309@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: > ... > My main caution on this package is that you won't be able to properly mix it > with other languages, since you can't link. I suppose your C program could > LoadSeg() something created with AssemPro, or call up an AssemPro generated > library, but you're not going to call AssemPro functions directly from C. > This may be a minor quip, though, since both C compilers already come with > Assemblers. Ahhh, but can I develop an assembly routine with assempro, and then use someone else's assembler to produce a linkable object? Is it compatible enough? -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds
dillon@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Dillon) (02/13/88)
In article <643@sandino.quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes: > >Ahhh, but can I develop an assembly routine with assempro, and then use >someone else's assembler to produce a linkable object? Is it >compatible enough? No. AssemPro makes little attempt at compatibility with other Amiga assemblers. The basic instuctions are the same, almost **, but most of the assembler directives are different. It is a pain to convert. Not impossible, just a pain. ** AssemPro does not take some popular instruction varriants such as "lea.l" or "bset.b". |\_/| . ACK!, NAK!, EOT!, SOH! {o o} . Bryce Nesbitt (") BIX: mleeds (temporarily) U Don't send mail... it won't get here.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (02/17/88)
> Summary: can you use another assembler on files created with assempro? > In article <3309@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >> My main caution on this package is that you won't be able to properly mix it >> with other languages, since you can't link. I suppose your C program could >> LoadSeg() something created with AssemPro, or call up an AssemPro generated >> library, but you're not going to call AssemPro functions directly from C. >> This may be a minor quip, though, since both C compilers already come with >> Assemblers. > Ahhh, but can I develop an assembly routine with assempro, and then use > someone else's assembler to produce a linkable object? Is it > compatible enough? MAYBE. If you write small programs, you're probably OK. The op-codes are no problem, but the pseudo-ops could be. The most common difference is the pseudo-op used for alignment. Assempro uses "ALIGN.W" or "ALIGN.L" type code, while Metacomco and Lattice use Moto's "CNOP" code. It's pretty simple to write macros to trade one for another, and the Assempro manual actually includes THESE macros. If you start getting very complex, and deal with INCLUDE user-written INCLUDEs, INCLUDEs playing as modules, or some of the SLABEL/ILABEL stuff, you may get into more involved compatibility issues. I don't think there'd be any problem with system includes, as long as you're including AssemPro files in Assempro and standard Amiga assembler includes with Metacomco or Lattice's assembler. I think for the most likely cases, like "I'm building this assembly subroutine to call later from C", Assempro would be a good route to take. You could build the subroutine really easily in the intergrated Assempro environment, test it out with their debugger, and then port it to MCC or Lattice with little or no trouble. Something the size of exec.library or graphics.library would be best left in MCC or Assempro format, unless you figure build yourself a generic environment with the proper macros in each system. > -Peter Schachte > pds@quintus.uucp > ...!sun!quintus!pds -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
rodd@dasys1.UUCP (Rod Dorman) (02/24/88)
Can anyone do a comparison of AssemPro vs DevPac Amiga?
According to the review in Amazing Computing V2#6 it also is a "turbo"
style assembler.
-- Rod --
{sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!roddbryce@eris (Bryce Nesbitt) (02/25/88)
In article <3085@dasys1.UUCP> rodd@dasys1.UUCP (Rod Dorman) writes: >Can anyone do a comparison of AssemPro vs DevPac Amiga? Between those two, the CLEAR winner is HiSoft's Devpack. Faster, less bugs, more compatible, faster and did I mention faster? |\_/| . ACK!, NAK!, EOT!, SOH! {O_o} . Bryce Nesbitt (") BIX: mleeds (temporarily) U USENET: bryce@eris.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!eris!bryce