Atmel AVR assembler
in [ASM]
|
Next: int 10h AX = 4F00h
From: wolfgang kern on 23 Jul 2005 23:22 <larwe(a)larwe.com> repied: | > I can't agree, | > CPU/MC-producers actually don't care about sense-making mnemonics. | | That's probably true but irrelevant. Assembly language is defined by | the CPU vendor. Anything you do that deviate from the vendor's spec is | writing a new language. That's new to me, AT&T/gas/gcc/.. use Intel/AMD recommeded style? | This is a semantic issue. I can't call the OP's product an assembler | because although what goes in looks like assembly language, it is not | in fact assembly language for any known processor. There are that many ASM-dialects around, that any attempt to create one more logical syntax count for itself, regardless of portability. I'm not familiar with Herbert's way either, but I can see the idea. If you like to see a few options of my disassembler: http://web.utanet.at/schw1285/KESYS/index.htm ,[codesnips],[HEXTUTOR] __ wolfgang
From: CBFalconer on 24 Jul 2005 00:47 Rich Webb wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> wrote: > > [snip...snip...] >> >> When small deviations can have evil consequences, then most probably >> small deviations can also have positive consequences. Why not try >> to start an evolution to the better side? > > While I admire your purity of spirit, please do not ever use your > "improved" assembler on any project involving another programmer or, > most especially, on any project that may require life cycle support > for decades. > > Maintenance programmers have a hard enough time as it is. Being > introduced to a project that needs "a few small changes" and being told > that, "Oh by the way, the guy that wrote this 17 years ago made up his > own assembler directives" is not a happy thought. Have a heart. What he could do, without raising hackles everywhere, is write a set of macros for m4 to process his version of assembly language into the generally accepted source. m4 is generally known, and available. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker on 24 Jul 2005 08:37 In comp.arch.embedded wolfgang kern <nowhere(a)nevernet.at> wrote: > <larwe(a)larwe.com> repied: > | That's probably true but irrelevant. Assembly language is defined by > | the CPU vendor. Anything you do that deviate from the vendor's spec is > | writing a new language. > That's new to me, AT&T/gas/gcc/.. use Intel/AMD recommeded style? No. But I'm willing to forgive AT&T (and GNU, which borrowed their syntax) this violation of a well-founded principle, on the grounds that Intel's original x86 assembly language is so incredibly horrible. Actually, there are only two real dialects of x86 assembly these days: MASM (MS's implementation of the original Intel syntax), and gas. All other assemblers that want a noticeable share of the market strive to emulate either of these to the letter. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker(a)physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
From: Betov on 24 Jul 2005 09:07 Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker(a)physik.rwth-aachen.de> ýcrivait news:3khgbhFucr5sU3(a)news.dfncis.de: > Actually, there are only two real dialects of x86 assembly these days: > MASM (MS's implementation of the original Intel syntax), and gas. All > other assemblers that want a noticeable share of the market strive to > emulate either of these to the letter. Absurd. See this: < http://retroforth.org/asmchart/ > All of the actual Assembler branch from NASM, plus, a little bit of inspiration from TASM (concerning FASM), and from A86 (concerning RosAsm, and maybe, GoAsm). None of the actual Assemblers Authors would be stupid enough for "striving to emulate" anything like MASM. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: CBFalconer on 24 Jul 2005 10:51
Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > In comp.arch.embedded wolfgang kern <nowhere(a)nevernet.at> wrote: >> <larwe(a)larwe.com> repied: > >>| That's probably true but irrelevant. Assembly language is defined >>| by the CPU vendor. Anything you do that deviate from the vendor's >>| spec is writing a new language. > >> That's new to me, AT&T/gas/gcc/.. use Intel/AMD recommeded style? > > No. But I'm willing to forgive AT&T (and GNU, which borrowed their > syntax) this violation of a well-founded principle, on the grounds > that Intel's original x86 assembly language is so incredibly horrible. > > Actually, there are only two real dialects of x86 assembly these > days: MASM (MS's implementation of the original Intel syntax), and > gas. All other assemblers that want a noticeable share of the > market strive to emulate either of these to the letter. Actually the rationale for gas is even simpler. It is based on the requirements for an assembler for gcc, which at one point required a suitable ordering of operands and means of specifying actual opcodes. It was developed with what amounts to apologies because of those needs, gcc being less capable of adapting than most humans. Many of the convolutions of MASM can be blamed on the abysmally complex object code format, which was imposed by Intel way back when. As usual Microsoft took that and misapplied it, while adding their own incompatabilities. That object format is now largely forgotten, but the effects are still here. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address! |