Subject: RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10b From: mathys66@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:30:54 -0400 |
You, changed a lot of types. Probably you changed something from signed to unsigned (or vice-versa) you shouldn't have, but the diff output is huge... >-- Original-Nachricht -- >From: mathys66@xxxxxxxxxx >To: stella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10b >Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:40:05 -0400 >Reply-To: stella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >>PS: I have been made aware of an error introduced into 2.20.10 -- lda #-1 >> >>and similar will not compile. Use instead lda #<-1. If someone could find >> >>this bug for me, I'd be delighted. It's to do with the assembler using >a >> >>16-bit value where only 8 is allowed. I touched it, I broke it. You would >> >>think a 'diff' on the code would make the problem obvious, but I can't see >> >>it :( >> > >Hello, >which versions are you comparing against eachother ? 2.20.10 and 2.20.07 >? >btw : have you ever thought about creating a sourceforge project for dasm >? having a version history available to the public could help here... >regards >thomas > >Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/ >Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com > Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/ Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10, mathys66 | Thread | RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10, mathys66 |
RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10, mathys66 | Date | RE: [stella] DASM update -- 2.20.10, mathys66 |
Month |