Are you talking about the indentation? At first I thought that was intentional to make it easier to follow the branching. After reading this comment, my guess is you have mixed spaces and tabs in your code

See also here: Calling assembly functions from C .

int getch(void)
{
char c;
__asm__ ("JSR $8A5A");
__asm__ ("STA %b", c);
return c;
}


That does not compile due to "%b" requiring a literal. Since "c" is a local variable, I don't think it can be accessed easily here. It should work by making ...

is this actually a concern? like if you don't want the ability to write to the ROM couldn't you just pull the WE line of the ROM/FLASH chip permanently high?
I assume that the issue is not "overwriting" the ROM, but rather the CPU and ROM both trying to drive the data bus during the write cycle.

Rom chips usually have distinct CS and OE lines - so you could still "select" the chip on a write cycle, as long as you don't enable the output.

I don't think ACME has segment support.

Out of the assemblers I frequently use, 64tass (aka tass64) has "sections", and ca65 (from cc65) has segments, along with a linker.

Or leave out the "sudo" in the first command, then you don't need the second command at all

I am assuming the code samples are for DASM, as that seems to be a popular choice for 2600 coding, and it has an RORG directive.

org $f000
As Garth said, this sets the address where the assembler will put the code, but in the case of a cross assembler like DASM, the code is not
placed in the ...

So, if file A depends on File B and C, and File B and C both depend on file D, What file should include what?
If you separate code from definitions, that question is easy to answer: You include the definitions wherever you depend on them, and you include the code wherever you want it to be placed ...

These include guards don't work like they would in C, because there is no preprocessor pass, just two assembler passes.

The "Symbol already defined." error in Acme (in the other thread) is caused by the code from the included file not being assembled during the second pass, thus changing the value ...

Some ways to set this up in the ld65 linker config:

16K padding section:

MEMORY {
DUMMY: start = $8000, size = $4000, type = ro, fill = yes;
ROM: start = $C000, size = $4000, type = ro, fill = yes;
}

SEGMENTS {
CODE: load = ROM, type = ro;
}

32K section with coded loaded at 16K offset ...

The article claims that computed goto does not work as expected in GCC, this article from 2012 claims otherwise.

Also I am wondering how you would implement stuff like pausing and single stepping without a dispatch loop, which to me would be much more important features for an *mulator than ...

... but I do like to see on the list file exactly what I'm getting.
Every macro assembler I've seen shows exactly what you're getting from the macros unless you tell it not to.
I recently evaluated a couple, and found that this cannot be taken for granted. Out of the five I have looked at:

- xa ...

Bare-bones FPGA board with 65xx softcores = "IoT platform"? Advertising indeed Notice how for the demo, they hook it up to an actual IoT platform.

That is simply an endless loop if _variable >= 16. So that is equivalent to your C code. The compiler just decided to implement your endless loop twice.

Here is a good video on the subject: Power Supply Decoupling & Filtering: why we use multiple caps in different locations (w2aew)