Jan, see below, please.
regards, Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Waclawek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > Richard, > > above you mentioned that you learned to drive a car under the supervision > of an expert (your Dad). > > If you are not happy with the SDCC documentation, why don't you try to do > the same with SDCC - you do have experts on this forum. Why don't you > simply try what I have suggested a couple of days ago - to compile a very, > very simple example - and then proceed to more complex examples simply by > asking for the details here... > Well, that's not the way I normally do things. Normally, I read about it until I understand it, then I do it. When my father taught me to drive, I'd been seeing him do it for ten years. Before that, i.e. before I was 6, we didn't even know anyone who owned a car. By the time he was teaching me to drive, I had supreme confidence in his understanding of the problem. He was one individual, right here, and I knew I could rely on his judgment. Confidence was high. Now, go back and look at the comments I've gotten when I've asked questions here. Sometimes they are germane, sometimes they're not. Sometimes they're consistent, sometimes they're not. Since the goal is not only to be able to compile a source file by trial and error, but to generate a simple, easy-to-follow, inherently correct, set of procedural instructions in written form ... well ... you see what I mean. Bear in mind, too, that the objective is to generate a set of procedural instructions that's an improvement on what's available now. If I generate something based on my experience, it is as likely as not, to be equal in quality to what's "out there" now. I'm not willing to expend the time and effort to do that. > >>> >>That was in the 2.8 package. Likewise, the 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, etc. There was >>no other ASM doc in the doc subdirectory. > > > c:/Program Files/SDCC/as/doc/asxhtm.html is labelled as v2.0. There are > also snippets of information in readme-s all around that directory. > Yes, that's the one that is dated 1998 and says, "This collection contains cross assemblers for the 6800(6802/6808), 6801(hd6303), 6804, 6805, 68HC08, 6809, 68HC11, 68HC12, 68HC16, 8051, 8085(8080), z80(hd64180), H8/3xx, and 6500 series microprocessors."Of those, which, other than the 'HC08 and Z80, are currently supported by SDCC and its appurtenant components? What about the 805x? Later on it says, "ASXXXX assembles supported by and distributed with SDCC are: asx8051 (Intel 8051) as-z80 (Zilog Z80 / Hitachi HD64180) as-gbz80 (GameBoy Z80-like CPU) as-hc08 (Motorola 68HC08)" Which would you have me believe? To some extent, I guess you'd say I'm experiencing a crisis of confidence. Perhaps this doc set can be cleaned up to a point at which such inconsistencies are no longer present. I assure you, they don't help. > Note that the assembler/linker is derived from an older version which did > not have '51 support. That was added by John Hartman (of the NoICE fame) - > read README in the same direcotry (there is an important note on the added > .area attributes in there). > Is that assembler consistent with the others? ... same syntax, same commands? > > However, the assembler is pretty generic and generally has the same syntax > for all targets - except of the instructions mnemonics, of course, and a > couple of predefined symbols (e.g. for registers). That's why the syntax > is quite different from the standard Intel-like syntax as most of the '51 > assemblers out there use (in a multiple of modifications). And also that's > why the documentation mentions the '51 only in the appendix. > Perhaps that's good to know, but, again, it's not likely to increase one's confidence. Somewhere, presumably among the SDCC files I've downloaded over the years, I found an ASEM51 by W.W. Heinz, which I find to be pretty good, having tried it out, and which I find quite suitable and quite sufficiently documented. Isn't that part of the package? I don't see it in the current (v2.8.?) download. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
