Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: forth eng./68hc11 new micros
Message-ID: <619.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 6 Mar 90 01:04:30 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 32

Category 6,  Topic 30
Message 45        Sun Mar 04, 1990
F.SERGEANT [Frank]           at 21:52 CST
 
 To Jack Brown re 6811 assembler

 Thanks for letting me know how you're doing with the assembler.  I'd  been
wondering.  I've tried to send you e-mail (to J.BROWN11) several  times, but I
guess they didn't get to you.

 Of course you should customize it to suit your preferences.  My  feeling is
that STA, STB, ORA, ORB, etc. are far superior to STAA,  STAB, ORAA, ORAB,
etc.  I've used the former for all my Motorola work  for years. Especially in
a Forth assembler, and especially for a New  Micro's board, the assembler is
used for one of a kind, hand-crafted  code where the high-level Forth won't
do.  I can't see there should be  much concern for conforming to Motorola's
"standard" mnemonics.  In  fact, Motorola didn't even conform to them when
going to the 6809,  which uses the more compact versions.  I accept, however,
that you do  see that there should be such a concern.  With or without those 
changes, our Forth assembler code still won't load directly into a  "standard"
Motorola assembler due to the ending commas on our mnemonics  and due to post-
fix, and due to the looping & conditional structures.

 I still haven't wired up my 68HC11 chip, so I'm not surprised to hear  there
were some bugs.  I'm glad you were able to get it running.  As  always, if you
or anyone find bugs and let me know the code it does  assemble vs the code it
should assemble I'll do my best to fix it and  post the corrections.

 -- Frank
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'