JimBoyd wrote:
That looks like source for a metacompiler's assembler.
You're right!
JimBoyd wrote:
I don't see a bias against labels
It's certainly subjective, I'm just going by his first sentence:
"Even in the era of structured programming, some programmers will insist on labels in their assembler code."JimBoyd wrote:
My Forth assembler, which also uses structured control flow, has BRAN, .
Yes, I saw that on the earlier thread, you've obviously honed this a bit, your RPN Forth assembly source code actually looks quite good, albeit not quite a simple IF, THEN, ELSE, in construction, but generally easy on the eye. If I do decide to build out the CamelForth assembler a bit more, I'll certainly come back to it.
If this was a smaller piece of assembly, then I'd probably do the conversion, but Sargon Chess is several thousand lines long and thus I think my time is better spend using the disassembler functionality to create my source code. I'm using f9dasm, which can take an 'info' file that allows you to add comments, label names, addresses etc to the disassembly, I find it really powerful.