Re: Aw: Re: [stella] Player data loading...semi newbie

Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [stella] Player data loading...semi newbie
From: "B. Watson" <urchlay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:54:59 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Glenn Saunders wrote:

> >>
> Phew... again, this was not meant to step on your toes Brian,
> I really think it's cool that you want to update DASM,
> but please, start from the right point.
> <<
> It all boils down to how it's used by people here.  I can see the advantage 
> of using a different processor directive for the illegal opcodes, because 
> you can constrain your coding to legal opcodes that way.  If you have an 
> accidental typo in your code that would otherwise be an illegal opcode, 
> you'd find that pretty easily because the assembler would error out on it if 
> you used processor 6502 instead of i6502.

That was what I was thinking... someone may have code that uses labels that
happen to collide with the new mnemonics (or macros, to simulate them).

> (Some people here avoid illegal 
> opcodes because they want their code to run on StellaX.)

and some of avoid them because we don't know them :)

> However, if people have already set a precedent to use processor 6502 and 
> the illegal mneumonics, then we should stick with that.

I'd have to agree. When I came up with the `i6502' idea, I didn't know it
had already been done.

> As for the graphic data representation, am I the only one who would find 
> that useful?  I agree that divergent code branching of DASM would be a 
> problem, but I don't see how divergent it can be if the only people revving 
> it are on this list.

I'd find it useful, that's why I coded it.

> I know I don't have a tremendous time for 2600 programming so anything added 
> to DASM to help me work faster, and make the code more readable, I'm all 
> for.

What did you think of the reverse/revend stuff from my other post, that would
let you draw your graphics `right-side-up' in source code and have the
assembler flip them?

And, what does everyone think of this idea:

A command-line switch (maybe -i) that tells DASM to allow illegal opcodes? The
default would be plain old DASM, no illegal opcodes allowed, and the -i would
cause DASM to use Thomas's list of illegal opcodes (which is better than mine).



Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread