1. pete: asm.e bug
asm.e seems to have problems interpreting the shl and shr commands.
It reports it as some kind of syntax error.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
2. Re: pete: asm.e bug
Alexander Toresson wrote:
> asm.e seems to have problems interpreting the shl and shr commands.
> It reports it as some kind of syntax error.
For me 'shl' and 'shr' work fine, tested on DOS32 and Windows (if you
like, look at my library "bit.zip" in the archieves).
I used the version of "asm.e", that was changed by Mic, from May 22,
2003.
Regards,
Juergen
--
A: Because it considerably reduces the readability of the text.
Q: Why?
A: Top posting.
Q: What is annoying in e-mail and news?
3. Re: pete: asm.e bug
Juergen Luethje wrote:
> I used the version of "asm.e", that was changed by Mic, from May 22,
> 2003.
That explains it. Didn't know there was an update.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
4. Re: pete: asm.e bug
Alexander Toresson wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> I used the version of "asm.e", that was changed by Mic, from May 22,
>> 2003.
>
> That explains it. Didn't know there was an update.
Besides the update by Mic (asm2.zip), there is the original by Pete
Eberlein (asm.zip) in the archieves. Also, there is another version
by Daniel Kluss, that he uses in one of his libraries (cputime.zip).
Pete, Mic, and Daniel, how about a "great reunion"? I (and certainly
other people, too) would appreciate it very much! How much micro $ do
you want? :o)
The assembler is an important tool!
Regards,
Juergen
PS: We had a "great reunion" in Germany 15 years ago.
I tell you, it's cool and hot at the same time. :o)
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | |\ _,,,---,,_
\ / against HTML in | /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
X e-mail and news, | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
/ \ and unneeded MIME | '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
5. Re: pete: asm.e bug
- Posted by "mic _" <stabmaster_ at hotmail.com>
Sep 06, 2004
-
Last edited Sep 07, 2004
>Pete, Mic, and Daniel, how about a "great reunion"? I (and certainly
>other people, too) would appreciate it very much! How much micro $ do
>you want? :o)
For a long time I've considered rewriting the assembly library from scratch,
since it's becoming increasingly difficult to add new features to the
existing one the way it is written. It's just a matter of finding the time
to do it. Seems like something that would take a couple of weeks of work.
6. Re: pete: asm.e bug
mic _ wrote:
>> Pete, Mic, and Daniel, how about a "great reunion"? I (and certainly
>> other people, too) would appreciate it very much! How much micro $ do
>> you want? :o)
>
>
> For a long time I've considered rewriting the assembly library from scratch,
> since it's becoming increasingly difficult to add new features to the
> existing one the way it is written. It's just a matter of finding the time
> to do it. Seems like something that would take a couple of weeks of work.
Yes, I can imagine that this would be a lot of work. I didn't know that
you think it should be rewritten from scratch. Thanks for considering
this point anyway.
Regards,
Juergen
7. Re: pete: asm.e bug
there was tons of *.asm files that do not convert with pete's asm.
They were 32-bit protected code, that rely on some basic 16-bit code.
Some of the BASICS should be considered in the new versions of *.asm.
*.asm should be able to convert a simple 'small model' "hello world" program
without having to recontruct the whole C language assembly.
Other than that, *.asm is pretty cool. I just hope to see it comply with
methods used in tons of C languge assembly.
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> mic _ wrote:
>
> >> Pete, Mic, and Daniel, how about a "great reunion"? I (and certainly
> >> other people, too) would appreciate it very much! How much micro $ do
> >> you want? :o)
> >
> >
> > For a long time I've considered rewriting the assembly library from scratch,
> > since it's becoming increasingly difficult to add new features to the
> > existing one the way it is written. It's just a matter of finding the time
> > to do it. Seems like something that would take a couple of weeks of work.
>
> Yes, I can imagine that this would be a lot of work. I didn't know that
> you think it should be rewritten from scratch. Thanks for considering
> this point anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
>
