Re: [stella] DASM wish list

Subject: Re: [stella] DASM wish list
From: xucaen <xucaen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:40:54 -0400
Hi, I just had a thought: A new assembler should be compatible with the 
books that have aleady been written on 6502 assembler. 


On 8/16/05, C. Bond <cbond@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "B. Watson" <atari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Aug 16, 2005 6:55 AM
> To: stella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [stella] DASM wish list
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, C. Bond wrote:
> > ...especially if your opcode list includes all
> > the unofficial opcodes. In some cases you may have to rewrite your 
> source code
> > to change labels such as SAX, DCP, etc. so they don't conflict with 
> opcodes.
> > It might be better to simply separate labels from opcodes by a 
> formatting rule.
> > (Maybe not, just a thought!)
> Illegal opcode support ought to be something you can turn off, either
> from the command line or with a directive in your source. At one time
> there was talk of doing this in DASM, but I can't remember whether it
> actually happened...
> > Another issue has to do with using opcode syntax such as LSR A and
> > ROL A. If your assembler simply requires LSR or ROL, you can free
> > up 'A' for use as a label, otherwise it becomes a reserved symbol.
> I don't think anyone who codes for the VCS also smokes crack, so we
> don't have to worry about that: non-crackheads know better than to use
> a label that conflicts with a register name! Just because something's
> allowed doesn't mean it's a good idea, and I'm willing to bet we won't
> run into any old code that has labels called A, X, or Y...
> [snip]
> In fact, I have bet that: I unconditionally treat A, X, Y, S, and PC as
> registers in the Stella debugger. I thought about it a lot, and decided
> that the inconvenience of having to type a "sigil" character (maybe ".A"
> or "%A" for accumulator, as opposed to just plain "A") doesn't outweigh
> the possible compatibility problems dealing with a drug-influenced
> label called "A"... Everyone's going to have to refer to the accumulator
> a zillion times, but only the insane people are going to have a label
> called "A". I won't punish the many for the crimes of the few.
> ---------------
> Well, in my post I did not state a preference. I only pointed out that 
> there
> are tradeoffs. However, I certainly don't recommend making things easier
> for "crackheads" or the "insane". You have a clear concept of what is
> convenient for the many and what weighs more heavily than what in
> assembler syntax specifications. I have no argument against your
> preferences, I simply pointed out as you did, that some decisions involve
> the selection of reserved symbols.
> --
> B.
> Archives (includes files) at
> Unsub & more at
> Archives (includes files) at
> Unsub & more at

I am Sci Fi
Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread