Re: XIZ.COM with macros?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:10:55 +0200, "Wolfram Kurtz (remove the NOSPAM.
for direkt answer)" <prof80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

roche182@xxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:
CBFalconer wrote:

... snip ...
In computer, there is always a "standard" that is used by 80% of the
people. When you talk Z-80 assembler, the standard (like it or not) is
M80, which is 6 times slower than Z80ASM. But Z80ASM arrived when CP/M
died... So, who (except you and me) remember Z80ASM?
Certainly not this Newbie. (And, anyway, he had a trouble with macros, not with his
Z-80 macro-assembler.)
... snip ...

Sorry, but it seams to me necessary to correct some assumptions:
1. I'm an CP/M-Oldie like You, although I've paused a long time
programming in assembler.

HI, same here save for I still program and use the CP/M systems I have
and use various tools to do it. As the "old timer" part goes I've
been doing this since 8008 and my first CP/M system was V1.3 though
1.4 was a big improvement.

2. I remember, know and use Z80ASM very good. But this is not the main goal!
3. I think You didn't understand the problem.

I tend to agree.


So I try to explain it once more:
---------------------------------
* I have a Z80-driven CP/M-Computer out of the 80th and now I'm
preparing this machine with fine new hardware. As You know, I have to
modify the BIOS and perhaps the monitor source. Both parts are written
in this (for me) bad understandable 8080-mnemonics - I don't like them ...
* For 8080-only code get the XIZ.COM translator and everything goes
fine. Now there is usage of Z80-codee in this pieces of sorces, ok?
Using the MAC/RMAC and original 8080-coded source, pushed up with
z80.lib to use the "new" commands works fine - but it's boring to me and
I want to have all this stuff in Z80 !!
* For the moment, it seems to be solved in two phases:
first with XIZ.COM, leaving the macros as they were ...
and second change the macros (only some are used like
JRZ/JRNZ/JRC/JRNC), given as errors by Z80ASM (as foreign code).

Generally I've found that tools like XIZ and others do poorly with
macros. The best solution is to hand edit the code. My preference
for this is Vedit or any editor that understands TECO command strings
and do a block find and replace or upload it to the PC and use
any PC editor to do block search and replace. Which I do is more
dependent on where the code is for a starting place. For example If
the code was copied (FTP or WEB) off the internet sources I'd use
a PC if the code is off one of my old disks then Vedit. Both work
and about the same for operational speed. If the task is large and
the target work is very specified beforhand I'll fire up a VAX/VMS
system and do the work from a script under LSE (very sophisticated
editor) though Emacs is certainly similarly capable.

In the end we all have a favorite editor, assembler, debugger and so
on and prefered style of neumonics. I have developed with so many
different CPUs that after a while I found it easier to not be so fussy
and use the current style tools. In the commercial space that often
meant using what the company preferred even if It was not my favorite.

In the end I find that tools that behave predictably are prefered to
those with hard to predict bugs and other eratic behavior.

All in all - thanks for Your helpful commands (everyone has his
preferences, not very astonishing for me :)

;) All are trying to help but in the last 30 years I've not seen a
better solution than a good ditor with block search and replace.

Allison




Wolfram

P.S.: Where can I get the disassembled ZSID, Mr Emmanuel Roche?

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Randall Hyde lies go on
    ... >difficult and inconvenient to use a separate editor, should a RosAsm ... >assembler). ... Here is a complete set of RosAsm "If" Macros: ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"
    ... too bad that I expect the same from macros that I use. ... I guess Rosasm is no longer written in assembly. ... does not detract from a tool being an assembler. ... it raises HLA some levels. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"
    ... > too bad that I expect the same from macros that I use. ... Are you unable to see the diffrence?The rosasm macros are little else but clever text replacesments for asm instructions. ... but it has nothing todo inside an assembler. ... well feature for feature to the Rosasm IDE which took near a decade. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: RosAsm?
    ... not what the instructions are. ... With a good set of macros this can be made even clearer... ... in this vain in my option the only programmers who should be ... by the assembler in a "Label not defined" error and probably ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: RosAsm - right click
    ... not actually suggesting the final syntax on ... > of the features of the assembler directives, as you can see it goes ... > (This is fairly similar to how the NASM macros ... > allow us to implement all of these data structure tooltips via ...
    (alt.lang.asm)