User forums > Embedded development
Assembler tools for CB
oBFusCATed:
1. Do you know if all assembler variants use the same lexer? We could probably add some smarter detection mechanism in the editor.
2. As far as I'm concerned an asm file is compiled to an object file and I don't see how this is different to c++ to object file translation. If there is not conceptual difference then the settings should go in the compiler's tag.
scarphin:
1- I don't know if they all use the same lexer but considering the simplicity of assembler syntax (usually in the form -> label: instruction operand(, operand) ;comment), a specific lexer should perform quite well for another assembler with correct keywords.
2- My point is assembler files are not compiled rather assembled into object files with an assembler but I now see your point. You are thinking in the 'end product' concept and I'm thinking in the 'process' http://nixchun.pixnet.net/blog/post/12331954-basic-introduction---gcc concept. Both are valid imo, just 2 different approaches. But if I needed to look for assembler settings as a first time user, compiler settings wouldn't be the first place I'd look. Maybe that's the reason emblocks maintainer implemented them next to compiler settings.
oBFusCATed:
1. I'm waiting for you to test and probably provide some missing lexers. Are you willing to do this job?
2. By looking at the E::B screenshot I see that there you can pass defines separately to the ASM compiler (assembler in your term) and C/C++ compiler. Do you need this capability? I think this might be annoying in most cases.
scarphin:
1- I'll try. I have some urgent things to do at the moment, I'll let you know if I make progress.
2- I never had to make separate defines for assembler but I can think of many ways assembler programmers can benefit from it especially for debugging and testing. So it would be nice to have this capability imo. May I ask which part do you think is annoying? The implementation or the usage?
Btw do you think extra search paths for assembler under search directories can be implemented too?
oBFusCATed:
--- Quote from: scarphin on March 11, 2014, 03:31:55 am ---May I ask which part do you think is annoying? The implementation or the usage?
--- End quote ---
For me it will be annoying if I have to enter the same defines at two places.
--- Quote from: scarphin on March 11, 2014, 03:31:55 am ---Btw do you think extra search paths for assembler under search directories can be implemented too?
--- End quote ---
It is possible, but is it needed? The question is same as the one for defines: would they be different than C/C++ ones most of the times?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version