Questions, bug reports, features requests, ... about the Oric Software Development Kit. Please indicate clearly in the title the related element (OSDK for generic questions, PictConv, FilePack, XA, Euphoric, etc...) to make it easy to locate messages.
Its syntax is inspired by xa65's (which most people here are familiar with I recon) and adds a very nice automatic zero page register allocation feature.
The Readme.md file on the link above has more details but this spares the programmer from having to manually hardcode the zero page memory locations they want to use in their routine: each routine can declare the names of the pseudo zero-page registers it wants to use and they will be automatically allocated in the zero-page, even apparently taking into account potential overlap by routines which call one another. When the registers are not needed anymore upon returning from a routine, it is capable of allowing other routines to use them.
I guess this can be very handy when tuning assembly sources since keeping tracks of which zero-page addresses are available at a given point of a program can be tricky when multiple functions use them.
Edit: Oops, I initially mistakenly attributed it to BitShifters (the group which recently ported Stunt Car Racer to the BBC.
Its syntax is inspired by xa65's (which most people here are familiar with I recon)
It is not, by far.
The only common thing is that it uses the 6502 conventions that most assemblers have agreed on regarding immediate, addresses, hexa, etc...
What is different from XA:
- .org instead of *
- .scope instead of .( and .)
- .byte instead of .byt
- .macro instead of #define
using that instead of XA would mean a massive rewrite of basically every single program you want to rebuild with it.
and adds a very nice automatic zero page register allocation feature.
That's actually not a bad idea, basically an auto allocation of memory addresses specified in a range at scope level.
Pasta is supplied as source code. Compile by typing 'make'. Prerequisites for building include:
- OCaml (I'm using 3.11.2, other versions may work too).
- ocamldsort
- Menhir
- GNU Make
That's an unusual choice of language to say the least
The .( and .) for scoping is probably the best feature of XA! at least for me! I use it nearly all the time as a way to delimit my functions (such as braces in C), even when I am not using local labels. Being able to use "loop" in all my loops is priceless
That and the C preprocessor compatibility, of course (#include, #ifdef, #define,...)
What is different from XA:
- .org instead of *
- .scope instead of .( and .)
- .byte instead of .byt
- .macro instead of #define
using that instead of XA would mean a massive rewrite of basically every single program you want to rebuild with it.
Actually, it does also support .( and .) for scoping.
I initially thought the other three points could be remedied with aliases but their syntax must be of the form ".alias <label> <label-or-num>".
I guess a preprocessing pass would be needed to convert XA syntax into pasta's.
Pasta is supplied as source code. Compile by typing 'make'. Prerequisites for building include:
- OCaml (I'm using 3.11.2, other versions may work too).
- ocamldsort
- Menhir
- GNU Make
That's an unusual choice of language to say the least
I like it! When I started looking into replacing opt65 some time ago I thought of using Haskell to write my own.
I like it! When I started looking into replacing opt65 some time ago I thought of using Haskell to write my own.
Sure, but I will not accept any non C or C++ programs in the OSDK.
Despite all its quality, Waskol's program was in Delphi, and that was annoying to integrate in the system, could not get Coverity to validate it, could not compile it myself, could not debug it.
