GNU GAS Immediate data misbehaving

Hello all,

when I use older 68K Assemblers this is fine:

move.L #'Hello!',(a3)

This does not work under GNU GAS though and a I get a syntax error - what am I doing wrong?

Cheers,

Minty.

[Don_Adan]

Originally Posted by MintyTheCat

Hello all,

when I use older 68K Assemblers this is fine:

move.L #'Hello!',(a3)

This does not work under GNU GAS though and a I get a syntax error - what am I doing wrong?

Cheers,

Minty.

Too long string.
You can use

move.l #'Hell',(a3)
move.w #"o!", 4(A3)

Originally Posted by Don_Adan

Too long string.
You can use

move.l #'Hell',(a3)
move.w #"o!", 4(A3)

Sorry, I put in an example without thinking:

for the general form of:

move.B #'A',d1

Usually this is fine under other Assemblers for the 68K that I have used but not for my GNU Assembler - any ideas?

[copse]

Originally Posted by MintyTheCat

Usually this is fine under other Assemblers for the 68K that I have used but not for my GNU Assembler - any ideas?

Yes. Post the error it causes.

Originally Posted by copse

Yes. Post the error it causes.

Sorry, guys - it has been a long day and I messed things up.

This works fine:

move.B #'AB',d1

But I had used the double-quotes as I would for Strings in C as:

move.B #"AB",d1

To which we get the GNU AS error as:

Error: syntax error -- statement 'move.b #"AB",d1' ignored

Thank you all for your help and I apologise for making a silly mistake.

Cheers.

[phx]

Originally Posted by MintyTheCat

Error: syntax error -- statement 'move.b #"AB",d1' ignored

Most Amiga assemblers make no differences between ' and ". But GNU-as does.

Originally Posted by phx

Most Amiga assemblers make no differences between ' and ". But GNU-as does.

Yes, as I found out

Still, all part of the fun.

Originally Posted by Don_Adan

Too long string.
You can use

move.l #'Hell',(a3)
move.w #"o!", 4(A3)

I seem to still be having issues with GAS:

For this:

move.l #'Hell',(a3)

I get the error as:

Error: syntax error -- statement 'move.l #72e1144(a3)' ignored

Puzzling, any ideas, anyone?

[alkis]

Replace # with $
(source http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3...eplace-numbers )

Originally Posted by alkis

Replace # with $
(source http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3...eplace-numbers )

I see how that is meant to work for x86 but for 68K not.

I get now:

move.W $'A',(a3)

undefined reference to '$65'

So GAS must be taking it as Absolute now.

This is odd that.

I am using these GAS switches:

AS_FLAGS:= -D -R -mcpu=68000 --bitwise-or --traditional-format --register-prefix-optional --statistics -I $(SRC)

The switches in red are 68K GAS specific.

[alkis]

Well, this works

	.text
	.even
	.globl	_foo
_foo:
	movel #('H'<<24|'E'<<16|'L'<<8|'L'),d0
	rts

Yeah, it's ugly.

#include <stdio.h>
int foo(void);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
  char buf[5];
  buf[4]='\0';

  int i = foo();
  
  strncpy(buf, (char *)&i, 4);
  
  printf("%s\n",buf);
  printf("%X\n",i);
  return 0;
}

Those two work as expected, compiled with:
m68k-amigaos-gcc -o tas t.c t.s -Wa,--bitwise-or

Originally Posted by alkis

Well, this works

	.text
	.even
	.globl	_foo
_foo:
	movel #('H'<<24|'E'<<16|'L'<<8|'L'),d0
	rts

Yes, that is very ugly.

I find it impossible to believe that GNU GAS does not permit string literals, for a start it would mean that much of the older 68K code assembled with Assemblers of the day which did permit it would not assemble with GAS.

I may end up having to look in the GAS src at this rate.

Thanks for trying that out, Alkis.

[phx]

Originally Posted by MintyTheCat

I find it impossible to believe that GNU GAS does not permit string literals, for a start it would mean that much of the older 68K code assembled with Assemblers of the day which did permit it would not assemble with GAS.

The main intention behind the development of the GNU assembler certainly was to assemble compiler output. It doesn't offer a lot of comfort for the pure 68k coder.

May I ask what you want to achieve? There are dozens of really good assemblers on the Amiga. Nobody would deliberately use gas for program development.

Originally Posted by phx

The main intention behind the development of the GNU assembler certainly was to assemble compiler output. It doesn't offer a lot of comfort for the pure 68k coder.

May I ask what you want to achieve? There are dozens of really good assemblers on the Amiga. Nobody would deliberately use gas for program development.

May I disagree with you on this? GNU GAS is a fine Assembler.

I seem to have found a bug in this version of GAS. I will be looking into this further.

I have used GAS for many projects now. My main concern is that I want the flexibility of GAS and the Binutils and I want to know that my toolchain will be supported into the future.

[phx]

Originally Posted by MintyTheCat

I want to know that my toolchain will be supported into the future.

The GNU binutils and compiler people don't care for anything other than x86 or ARM. Other targets are slowly bit-rotting and finally removed...