flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Compiler Internals > Hello and parser output specs? |
Author |
|
Gus 16 Jan 2008, 19:53
Hi,
I did found some fasm internals info here in the forums, but it seems not enough. Internal numbers representation by example, must follow sources in detail to undestand it complety. I need that and some other info as symbol table state at assemble stage entering. I do not want to use preprocessor and parser, but enter directly to assemble. I understand maintain fasm is hard and very time consuming task, not to talk about clean sources, so generously available for download. So, what I must assume? 1- There is not available info yet? 2- There is not interest in fasm being used as backend for other compilers? 3- Not enough time to put the info together? 4- Not consistent internals, may change in time so better not waste time writing efimerous info. 5- Reverse enginering it, do not bother here. 6- My english/humor sense is horrible no one undestand it (probably). Thanks for your time. |
|||
16 Jan 2008, 19:53 |
|
revolution 16 Jan 2008, 20:01
A1: True, but you can help, if you discover something, post it.
A2: Not true, it has been discussed, but nothing happened. A3: True, I expect, docs take time and good docs take lots of time. A4: Very true, I found this with fasmarm. A5: Don't see why not, there is lots to learn inside. A6: Maybe, but it is generally considered bad manners to point out petty things. Major blunders are a different matter, feel free to poke fun at whomsoever writes clearly junk code. |
|||
16 Jan 2008, 20:01 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 16 Jan 2008, 20:05
I once started such project, see http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=28103#28103
But the internals were changing faster than I was able to document them. |
|||
16 Jan 2008, 20:05 |
|
LocoDelAssembly 16 Jan 2008, 21:21
There is something that I can't find explanation for, and that is the lack of many symbolic numbers, you are forced to check code that alters the memory part (or check what action is taken when the variable is read) to more or less know what the number represents. I think that binding names to numbers doesn't take too much time (surely much less than thinking an unique global label name for every label defined in source).
|
|||
16 Jan 2008, 21:21 |
|
Gus 17 Jan 2008, 05:01
Revolution: I understand. Sorry if I offended someone, that was not my will at all. In fact, it was all the contrary :S
Tomasz: I saw that, good work, unfortunately it explains the part I wont use, preprocessor and the very simple interface :S But tables description are very useful. Loco: I agree, named constants would help. My 2 cents offer: I could take the last source, name some constants, and comment a bit (at least the parts that I follow ), when time permits, if tomasz agree in using it from there as to acumulate the documentation work (too much work to do from zero in every release). So we could end having more readable sources in some time. I think it is easier to keep source comments updated rather than update separated text files after any change, tomasz could modify comments while coding (or simply delete the incorrect ones, mark the place ;##### and let others do that work). The inconsistent internals problem could be solved at least in part by this manner. rgds, Gus |
|||
17 Jan 2008, 05:01 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Jan 2008, 07:01
LocoDelAssembly wrote: There is something that I can't find explanation for, and that is the lack of many symbolic numbers, you are forced to check code that alters the memory part (or check what action is taken when the variable is read) to more or less know what the number represents. I think that binding names to numbers doesn't take too much time (surely much less than thinking an unique global label name for every label defined in source). I prefer working with numbers for those structures - they allows to see things you cannot see through the textual names. As the legendary Mel would say: "You never know where [assembler] is going to put things, so you'd have to use separate constants". |
|||
17 Jan 2008, 07:01 |
|
snrtrui 17 Jan 2008, 12:42
I think.If you can promulgate this object's flow chart, is better!
it can allure lots members to consummate this objects! |
|||
17 Jan 2008, 12:42 |
|
vid 17 Jan 2008, 14:38
Quote: I prefer working with numbers for those structures - they allows to see things you cannot see through the textual names. In this case, I prefer working with numbers, but explaining their meaning somewhere. |
|||
17 Jan 2008, 14:38 |
|
Gus 17 Jan 2008, 18:55
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
It answers it all, we wont have named constants by now Great history! Made me remember the old days when I got my first z80. A wired breadboard was ready for it, 1mhz xtal, some leds. I had no tools, no pc, no asm, so wired an eprom burner myself, mains 50 hertz was the basetime for it, some buttons allowed to input address and value by each location, all in hex. The only way to test a program was burning the eprom (2704 I think), inserting it in its socket and firing power...a blinking led was the result of many programming hours. A single error means 30 minutes of ultraviolet light to erase the eprom (nice time to speculate about the last error), and start everything again. Not drums but ahh, lots of adrenaline anyway Sorry the OT. Gus |
|||
17 Jan 2008, 18:55 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 18 Jan 2008, 07:07
vid wrote:
I have them all in my notebook, don't you remember? |
|||
18 Jan 2008, 07:07 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.