gnupic: Re: special numbers
Subject:
Re: special numbers
From:
Craig Franklin ####@####.####
Date:
11 Sep 2004 02:51:27 +0100
Message-Id: <41416B02.6030706@users.sourceforge.net>
Pico,
I don't know what is happening, but two of your messages on this thread
didn't make it through to me.
I have had some spam problems recently. So I switched my email and
started using the sourceforge alias, just like you are. I am not sure,
but sourceforge might be wiping out some of our messages.
I had to manually fetch this message after reviewing the gnupic archive:
####@####.####
> To clearify, i have tested the latest patch, that uses yyless
> instead of REJECT extensivly, and it address both cases,
> the processor xxx and the list p=xxx.
> The things, that don't work are define operation on processor using
> for example
> #define PIC 16f628
>
> and later
> processor PIC
>
> It works, if you use either p16f628 or pic16f628 instead of 16f628.
>
You should be able to remove the processor name/number hack from gpasm
and this is true for all processors. The hack is only required for
processor names specified without a "p" or "pic".
> The only open issues is the pic processor 14000 .
>
> processor 14000 ; WORKS
> list p= 14000 ; FAIL
> list p=p14000 ; OK
> list p=pic14000 ; OK
>
> I can make this a special case, this would add 4-5 lines of additional
> code or a simple hack is this.
> ([0-9]{2,2}[a-z]|14000/[^0-9]*)
>
If you get it all working send me the final patch. I won't commit a
patch that has known regressions.
I started looking at it. There might be an easy solution. I will send
more info after testing it.
> Craig, some times ago, i have send to you some patches addressing some
> small bugs like this. The diff that i have send are based on a old
> release of gpasm. Do you have received this mail or is this ones of
> the `usual' mails, that you never receive ?.
>
I am not sure how to take this. You seem to be implying that I ignore
your messages. You have made this charge once before. In an email to
me on 8/23 you stated that I didn't respond to your two previous
messages. The thing is I sent you two responses, one on 8/18 and on
8/21. Did you receive these messages?
8/18:
> You need to give some examples. Each one has its own story.
> pico wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the gpasm assembler has some flaws of parsing numbers and
> identifiers. This is related to the numeric suffixes to
>
> identify the
>
> radix of the numbers. MPasm officially don't support it.
>
> Is this a error and the suffix can be removed , or are
>
> needed for
>
> compatibility reasons ?
8/21:
> pico wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i have found the solution for parsing the numbers correctly.
>>
>>
>>
> What happened? Is there a bug?
<snip>
I searched all my mail folders and I can't find any recent patches from
you. The only patches I found were related to the gpal fork you were
pursuing in March. The messages about gpasm started around August 18.
I found many instances were you refer to a bug you found/fixed. When I
requested examples, data, and/or patches. I didn't receive any response.
It is very possible that the problem I described at the top of this
message is contributing to our communications problems. I will get to
the bottom of it. But know this, I make every effort to respond to
peoples questions and problems. It is pretty good service considering
the price.
Please forward the original messages with patches to the mailing list
and I will review them.
>
>
> </div>
