Most assemblers either choke on some 68020+ constructs or don't have a proper peephole optimizer, usually not able to optimize forward branches (and, no, altering the source isn't a good idea : it fails miserably with macros and conditional assembly).
Often some features I find very handy are't supported (e.g. basereg directive). Some integrated environments can be a little bit on the unstable side or are even less practical to use than mere command-line. All in all, only PhxAss can do it for me, despite its numerous (but minor) bugs. Vasm would too if it weren't so slow and memory hungry. Made me wonder if i shouldn't write mine... |
"ON N' EST JAMAIS SI BIEN SERVI QUE PAR SOI-MÊME" :o)
Kamelito |
Another saying: "Chi fa da sé fa per tre".
A new integrated environment (editor/linker/debugger) would definitely be the best. But a long and hard work.. Bye! ross |
If i ever write an asm it'll be command-line, even though i'm already using my own debugger since years.
|
Quote:
[own debugger? it's public? just curious..] Cheers, ross |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As a 68k asm newb, I tried both Asm-Pro and Asm-One but could not easily spot the difference, so I am not sure which one I should start with if I wanted to learn some 68k programming. And when you add PhxAss and Vasm into the mix, it becomes even more complicated. Would be much easier if people could just point to one which is universally accepted as being the best but things are never so simple..
For C64 assembly I prefer cross-assembling on the PC, but still haven't made up my mind if I want to go the same route with Amiga. Guess I won't find out for sure until I try it out. The relationship you have with an editor can be very personal and sometimes the chemistry is just wrong. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sounds to me like my choice would be AsmPro/One for working on the Amiga and Vasm for cross-assembling. Does Vasm also include a linker to run on the PC and does it work well with objects from, say, common Amiga C compilers or maybe GCC with 68k target on PC? Quote:
|
Quote:
From superficial test : - does not "unoptimize" (= enlarge branches that are out of range ; instead, reports an error) - no way to adapt code to target processor (something like __CPU to test with if/endc) - basereg directive not implemented in the proper way - chokes on accentuated characters in labels - does not support offset sections (etc, etc) Quote:
|
Having started my journey in monitor49152 on C64, there is no better place than home, I mean asm-one ;P.
I find its IDE so beneficial to my coding style&habbits and what I'm doing that it surpases anything else I've tried. My progression was seka => trash'em-one => asm-one. But as already stated, if you are doing larger multi-file multi-language stuff you are better off with something else. Yeah, it has bugs but nothing major for me. Some ~20 years ago when Price was in charge I sent bug resports and stuff was fixed. Is the project still alive? I haven't contacted Boushh, and it's been like 10 years since the last update. Would be great to see it get open sourced >< so I could hopefully fix some of the stuff. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I started with Seka too, but proceeced over A68k to PhxAss (first versions were assembled by A68k). |
Quote:
http://sun.hasenbraten.de/vbcc/ Then find an editor of your liking, preferably with ARexx (I use CED) and use the BDebug debugger which is in the Barfly package for a power users 68k development environment from the start ;). http://aminet.net/dev/asm/BarflyDisk2_00.lha |
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.