Jump to content

Photo

Old vs New: mac/aln vs smac/vlink


17 replies to this topic

#1 Tyrant OFFLINE  

Tyrant

    Stargunner

  • 1,611 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:20 AM

I'm just wondering what the differences are, and what reason there might be to upgrade my toolchain?

#2 doctorclu OFFLINE  

doctorclu

    ******Blue Max****** *****Class 4*****

  • 5,615 posts
  • (Bubsy Bobcat fan)
  • Location:Dallas, TX - U.S.A.

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:59 AM

I'm just wondering what the differences are, and what reason there might be to upgrade my toolchain?



I see you are talking about Macs.. when you say older Mac and newer Mac, what do you mean?

#3 Tyrant OFFLINE  

Tyrant

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,611 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:01 AM

I see you are talking about Macs.. when you say older Mac and newer Mac, what do you mean?

Sorry, I perhaps should have been clearer, I meant madmac the Atari macro assembler, vs the more newly written "smac" assembler.

#4 Atari_Owl OFFLINE  

Atari_Owl

    Dragonstomper

  • 986 posts

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:21 AM

Smac contains macros to assist with RISC code running from main.

I can assemble and link the Owl Project with either.

Apparently there are still a few bugs with SMAC and SLN but SUBQMOD is addressing these so if yuou try it, and please do, then please also let him know if you have any issues and he will address them.

Other than that SMAC and SLN are more compatible with more OSs

Edited by Atari_Owl, Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:22 AM.


#5 Tyrant OFFLINE  

Tyrant

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,611 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:50 AM

Smac contains macros to assist with RISC code running from main.

Hmm... surely the required macros could be used for madmac too? I've not tried, but the rules concerning the alignment don't seem particularly tricky to follow.

Other than that SMAC and SLN are more compatible with more OSs

That's not going to be an issue for me until/unless someone writes an improved wdb.

#6 Zerosquare OFFLINE  

Zerosquare

    Stargunner

  • 1,785 posts
  • Location:France

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:58 AM

Basically, if you're comfortable with mac and aln, there is no real reason to switch right now.

#7 Atari_Owl OFFLINE  

Atari_Owl

    Dragonstomper

  • 986 posts

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:35 PM


Smac contains macros to assist with RISC code running from main.

Hmm... surely the required macros could be used for madmac too? I've not tried, but the rules concerning the alignment don't seem particularly tricky to follow.

They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

#8 Tyrant OFFLINE  

Tyrant

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,611 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:47 PM

They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?

#9 CannibalCat OFFLINE  

CannibalCat

    Star Raider

  • 77 posts

Posted Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:24 PM


They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?


I think the bigger purpose of the new tools was modern OS compatibility from what I can see.

#10 Atari_Owl OFFLINE  

Atari_Owl

    Dragonstomper

  • 986 posts

Posted Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:47 PM

[quote name='CannibalCat' date='Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:24 PM' timestamp='1279747446' post='2055813']
[quote name='Tyrant' date='Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:47 PM' timestamp='1279406823' post='2052963']
[quote name='Atari_Owl' date='Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:35 PM' timestamp='1279402509' post='2052929']
They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of
[/quote]
What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?
[/quote]

I think the bigger purpose of the new tools was modern OS compatibility from what I can see.
[/quote]

I already mentioned that
[quote name='Atari_Owl' date='Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:21 PM' timestamp='1279380092' post='2052719'
Other than that SMAC and SLN are more compatible with more OSs
[/quote]

Just mentioned that there were other positives too - wish i hadn't bothered

#11 Atari_Owl OFFLINE  

Atari_Owl

    Dragonstomper

  • 986 posts

Posted Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:48 PM



They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?


I think the bigger purpose of the new tools was modern OS compatibility from what I can see.


I already mentioned that

Other than that SMAC and SLN are more compatible with more OSs


Just mentioned that there were other positives too - wish i hadn't

Edited by Atari_Owl, Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:48 PM.


#12 CyranoJ OFFLINE  

CyranoJ

    Stargunner

  • 1,983 posts
  • RAPTOR in LOCAL
  • Location:Adelaide, SA

Posted Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:41 PM

I think the bigger purpose of the new tools was modern OS compatibility from what I can see.


From what I gather Mac/ALN work on Vista and W7, so thats not really an issue any more.

I always use Mac - nothing more frustrating that traking down a bug only to discover that SMAC assembled something incorrectly. We do however assemble with SMAC occasionally and compare binaries which has helped identify a few bugs in SMAC which SubQMod has immediatly fixed.

As I've said before, if you can't manage to set up DOSbox then you really shouldn't be trying to code on anything. It's not that difficult to get running :)

#13 JagChris OFFLINE  

JagChris

    River Patroller

  • 2,383 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:40 AM


They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?


No. With madmac you have to do it manually I believe. With Smac the macros are built in to automate the process. That ws part of the reason smac was created, beyond the ability to be used on new systems.

#14 Tyrant OFFLINE  

Tyrant

    Stargunner

  • Topic Starter
  • 1,611 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:48 PM



They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?


No. With madmac you have to do it manually I believe. With Smac the macros are built in to automate the process. That ws part of the reason smac was created, beyond the ability to be used on new systems.

Do what manually?

Do you mean manually include the macros; or that for some reason madmac's macro capabilities aren't advanced enough to cope with the alignment issues?

#15 JagChris OFFLINE  

JagChris

    River Patroller

  • 2,383 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:13 PM




They're not tricky to follow - just tiresome to keep track of

What I meant is, surely you don't need a whole new assembler to process the macros for keeping track of the alignments, you should be able to use the macro support in madmac to do the same thing, right?


No. With madmac you have to do it manually I believe. With Smac the macros are built in to automate the process. That ws part of the reason smac was created, beyond the ability to be used on new systems.

Do what manually?

Do you mean manually include the macros; or that for some reason madmac's macro capabilities aren't advanced enough to cope with the alignment issues?


I dont program in assembly so I am not exactly sure. Smac is designed around automating the process through macros. You can read the smac manual and see how it says to implement them or of course you can use madmac and do it the old fashioned way the way Gorf says he does and see what the differences are and which way you like doing it better.

#16 JagChris OFFLINE  

JagChris

    River Patroller

  • 2,383 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:11 PM


I think the bigger purpose of the new tools was modern OS compatibility from what I can see.


From what I gather Mac/ALN work on Vista and W7, so thats not really an issue any more.

I always use Mac - nothing more frustrating that traking down a bug only to discover that SMAC assembled something incorrectly. We do however assemble with SMAC occasionally and compare binaries which has helped identify a few bugs in SMAC which SubQMod has immediatly fixed.


Looks like the bugs in Smac are closer and closer to being completely squished. :)

#17 GT Turbo OFFLINE  

GT Turbo

    Dragonstomper

  • 525 posts
  • Location:Alsace, France

Posted Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:17 PM

That ws part of the reason smac was created, beyond the ability to be used on new systems.


I use a CT60 Falcon for Jag coding !! :) Hihi !!


GT :)

#18 Atari_Owl OFFLINE  

Atari_Owl

    Dragonstomper

  • 986 posts

Posted Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:09 AM

I do too sometimes - and in fact when i started i used the Falcon060 exclusively (now its just usually more convenient with a PC)

Edited by Atari_Owl, Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:10 AM.





0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users