--- In cosmacelf@..., "Richard" <stateamuse@c...> wrote:
I've seen 1802 code meant to compile with various assemblers with
slightly different syntaxes. For best utility, a new assembler may
want to support alternative notations where it's easy. A macro
facility, or a macro preprocessor would also help (perhaps GNU GASP
could be adapted?) Then, achieving compatibility with a specific
assembler would be a matter of using an include file with the right
A converter is a nice idea, but could be a lot more work, and more
1.Like using H' To specify Hex address? Don't like?Never seen it, don't like it. I've always seen 0FFH or $FF, which are
easy to parse. If you want to to save users hours of debugging
"weird" behavior, then the "H" operator should be case
insensitive--accept 0ffh as well.
2.Like The .equ xxx,xxx format? Don't like?I've always seen LABEL EQU ADDR, or LABEL .EQU ADDR. A Macro
facility would make this a non-issue.
3.Like The >> operator?IT's fine, and probably better then HIGH/LOW, but HIGH and LOW show up
frequently, and including them, if not too difficult, would be very
useful A macro facility would make this a non-issue
4.Like the period in the .db .dw? Don't like?Either, but since both are used, it would be nice to have a flag to
switch between the ".XXX" and "XXX" notations for reserved words. A
macro facility could make this a non-issue.
Also, some assemblers use a "R4" notation for registers, while other
simply use "4" for register 4. Support for both may be helpful if not
too difficult. Again, if an "R4" macro could be defined as "4", then
this is a non-issue.
Thanks for asking for votes! I'm interested to see the result,