_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

All of them except "%" modulo (and maybe "~" two's complement, don't remember that) are also supported by the xa65 cross assembler :-)
Also works at compile time.

André

Here's an error to report, and also a few questions for BDD, or anyone, regarding the Kowalski assembler:

First: Will it let you create local labels, and how is that done? Example:


BDD, thanks for the info you've posted here and on your web site re this assembler. In fact I notice there's quite a lot of Kowalski assembler discussion here in the Emulation and Simulation section. Some but not all of the info is reproduced on your site -- would you be interested in going further? Or perhaps a new topic in the Programming section might be better -- more interactive, I mean. In any case, it'd be a real asset to users if the material could be collected in one place. Even some of the basic stuff... For example, we all know $ prefixes a hex number, but offhand I don't recall how to invoke binary notation, or -- heaven forbid -- octal!!

Finally, something's not right in your post above. The two's complement of 1 is $FF, not $FE. Is that a teeny typo on your part (you meant to say the ~ tilde symbol represents one's complement), or is it a bug in the assembler (which does indeed evaluate ~1 as $FE)?

thanks,

Jeff
EDIT: I deleted my question about the directives. Info about directives pops up on-screen in the simulator's editor window; all you do is set your cursor on a directive in your source code, and... shazam! (I overlooked this excellent feature because, instead of Kowalkski's editor, I usually use the source-code editor Notepad++ -- also excellent, and free.)

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

That's good to know, too, but it isn't the information I was seeking. Probably I'm using the wrong terminology -- "local" -- so, without using that term, I'll explain more carefully.

I'm talking about a convenient feature that I first learned using the TASM and MASM x86 assemblers. In a situation like this...the branch is a short one, and easy to understand. For such a trivial situation, some folks take the view that it's un-necessary for the programmer to devote time to creating a unique label name for the branch target. Some disagree, perhaps. Anyway, the optional time-saving alternative was to use the handy MASM/TASM feature, which let you code something like this: The assembler recognizes @F as denoting a Forward branch to the closest location marked F@. Backward branches used @B and B@ in the same way. (I just made up the @ thing, having forgotten the actual character sequence.) These little placeholder labels could be used repeatedly, without confusion and without any "not unique" error message. I thought the idea was a pretty cool time-saver, and wondered if Kowalski included it. Now I'm wondering what to call it, too!

J.

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Why not structure macros. No label needed.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

That kind of macro is definitely valid and makes for fewer lines to look at, but there will be countless other needs for branches where it would be nice to avoid adding a label, especially when you can't think up a valid, meaningful name (hence the "doIhavetomakeupanameforthis"). Before the structure macros, I had tons of labels like aafd1 or mcp2, abbreviating the name of the routine they're in and then numbering the branch destinations within the routine.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

Structured conditionals are the norm for Bill Ragsdale's RPN assembler. But, for a mainstream assembler, I wouldn't have thought of attempting to provide structured conditionals via macros. Nice work, Garth -- yours are even nestable! Also the web page is well written, and you're offering macro files to download... Plainly a lot of work invested there. (Ditto for the 65816 macros on BDD's site.)

Aside from having to create the name, another reason I dislike these nuisance labels is that someone reading the code and seeing the label might wonder, "what else jumps there?". The structured conditionals give a better picture of what's going on.

-- Jeff

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html

Yes, and when I've made a change in the code here and there and eliminated a branch, I had to do a search to see if I can eliminate the label without breaking something else.

Thanks for the compliments on the article. Edit: I added more structure macros and some accessory macros to it in May 2013, most importantly the FOR_X...NEXT_X and FOR_Y...NEXT_Y with lots of options for how to use them, improving the loops where you would use X or Y as counters. They're nestable too.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

Hi BDD - just a reminder this error stands uncorrected. And I don't understand your response. Do you mean the assembler resolved the expression ~1 as equaling $FE, and, from that, you concluded that the tilde signified two's complement? $FE is the one's complement -- surely that's rudimentary. Can you explain the advantage of coding an example?

cheers,
Jeff

_________________
In 1988 my 65C02 got six new registers and 44 new full-speed instructions!
https://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/ ... mmary.html

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!