gnupic: Re: [gnupic] PIC assembler technique question
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] PIC assembler technique question
From:
Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date:
12 May 2005 20:13:22 +0100
Message-Id: <4283AAC8.5060700@dattalo.com>
Bill Freeman wrote:
<*BIG* snip about gpasm/MPASM's bank stuff>
> Final questions:
>
> Is this totally bogus and or useless in some way that I'm
> missing? If it's interesting, do you have opinions on syntax?
> If I were to develop a set of patches for gpasm, would it likely
> be accepted (eventually), or does the desire to stay faithful to
> mpasm mean that we would be forked forever?
The only problem with what you write is that the assumptions about the
current bank can be incorrect in certain circumstances. (Imagine a
function called from two different places; each with different RPx
settings). However, if we want to go the extra distance, we can have
gpasm automatically instrument the code with "bank check assertions"
that can be checked by gpsim. I've experimented a little with assertions
already and think that we have the infrastructure on both the gpasm
and gpsim side to support this. Of course, you'll only get the benefit
of the check if you run the code through the simulator...
As far as the issue of breaking compatibility with MPASM, I don't think
it'd be too hard to add a command line option like '--strict-MPASM' or
something to enforce MPASM compatibility. But, we do run the risk of
people passing around gpasm generated .cod files and complaining when
they don't load in MPLAB...
Scott
