ray@j.cc.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) (06/28/88)
Voting for comp.binaries.cbm and comp.sources.cbm ends on the first of the
month, so this is your last chance. Votes should be mailed to me. Good
addresses to use are:
ray@j.cc.purdue.edu
pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!ray
Anyway, the current totals don't look good. The binary group has 87
for votes and 46 against votes. The sources group has 77 for votes and 28
against votes. (For those of you that don't know, it takes 100 more yes
votes than no votes to create a group.)
(I can't understand why there are so few votes... Commodore machines
are alot more popular than apples, macs, and amigas, (and probably more popular
than all three put together). There are binary and source groups for
apples, macs, and amigas.)
Rayewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (06/29/88)
In article <7325@j.cc.purdue.edu> ray@j.cc.purdue.edu (Ray Moody) writes: > (I can't understand why there are so few votes... Commodore machines >are alot more popular than apples, macs, and amigas, (and probably more popular >than all three put together). There are binary and source groups for >apples, macs, and amigas.) > A guess: I would suspect that it has something to do with the fact that there are so many #&^%!* different source code formats, depending on whose assembler you use. Then there's also the PETASCII issue; where do you do the conversion, if at all? It's a big mess. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!pacbell -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Hmm, you're right. Air is made up of suspended meat loaf." -- Josh Siegel
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/30/88)
In article <6409@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > A guess: I would suspect that it has something to do with the fact >that there are so many #&^%!* different source code formats, depending on >whose assembler you use. There is an "official" source code format, namely the one supported by the CBM assembler, my own PAL assembler and its clones. Not that this will stop people from providing stuff in different formats. The official format is: Free Format (no indent required) All 6502 opcodes reserved words =, *=, .byte, .word, .end are official pseudo-ops Address mode formats as in the books, ie: (addr),y and "rol a" Of course, I and most others added far more than this to the various assemblers. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/02/88)
In message <1800@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says: >There is an "official" source code format, namely the one supported by >the CBM assembler, my own PAL assembler and its clones. Not that this >will stop people from providing stuff in different formats. Err, last, I heard, PAL used tokenised BASIC program files for its storage format, not text. Is that REALLY an "official" source code format? Not to mention that I have had absolutely no success cranking PAL code through the CBM assembler, for one simple reason: SIX-CHARACTER LABELS. Most PAL programs use REAL labels, which the CBM assembler barfs on. Not to mention that PAL's pseudo-ops are totally different from the CBM assembler's.... but you already knew that. > >The official format is: > Free Format (no indent required) Broken, in Commodore's new assembler in the 128 Devpac > All 6502 opcodes reserved words > =, *=, .byte, .word, .end are official pseudo-ops > Address mode formats as in the books, ie: (addr),y > and "rol a" Those all seem fairly good. Except for "rol a". I keep banging my head against that instruction as I wobble crazily from assembler to assembler (at last count, 5 different assemblers that at one time or another I've worked with regularly). I can never remember which ones want "rol a" and which ones want just plain "rol". Actually, it's fairly easy to convert something from one assembler to another. The problem comes when they use special features of their particular assembler... such as PAL's .goto's, CASSM's #if, HCD65's "local labels".... or when you're wanting to go backwards to the CBM assembler (where you run into the 6-character-label lamppost). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?"
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/04/88)
Yes, we all put different extensions into our assemblers, many of them useful, but there is a standard format. That format should be handled by the largest variety of assemblers. It may only allow 6 character labels, and that's a pain, but it's the only format that will go through several. (You can import text files into PAL's use of Basic source if you line number the file and use the redirection of input trick well known on PETS etc. for merging files. You can even use auto line number mode in various packages that do this. I won't mention one famous one. :-) Of course, that this portable format exists will probably not make anybody put there posted programs in it, so there isn't a good solution. I know of at least one PAL compatible assembler called Buddy. Do not buy the "Assembler/Monitor 64" from Data Becker, which is a pirated PAL. (As far as I know this doesn't reflect on other Abacus products.) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/07/88)
In message <1808@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP says: >by the largest variety of assemblers. It may only allow 6 character >labels, and that's a pain, but it's the only format that will go through >several. And I, for one, will never post a file with 6-character labels! I gave up that kind of torture long ago... somewhere after I gave up using 1541's for program development, I think :-). I'm not enough of a sado-masochist to submit myself to that kind of torture.... HOWEVER: There IS a solution. A long LOOONG time ago, I wrote a preprocessor for the Commodore assembler that would take long labels and squash them down into short nonsense-looking labels. I don't think I have it anymore, that was hmmmm 1983? 1984?, but, it wasn't all that difficult of a program to write (not all that difficult? Wha's this guy on, you ask? Well, my guru had just taught me about state diagrams and state machines...). >put there posted programs in it, so there isn't a good solution. I know >of at least one PAL compatible assembler called Buddy. Do not buy the >"Assembler/Monitor 64" from Data Becker, which is a pirated PAL. (As far >as I know this doesn't reflect on other Abacus products.) As far as *I* know, it DOES. Every Abacus product that I have ever seen, with the possible exception of their BASIC compiler (which is merely excrutiatingly slow), has been a pile of garbage. Their "C" is a joke, their books are only marginally useful (does save a little paper compared to printing out my own disassemblies, though), their Pascal compiler barfs on spaces in the wrong places......... -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 MISFORTUNE, n. The kind of fortune that never misses.