Jump to content
Tyrant

Old vs New: mac/aln vs smac/vlink

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...