Re: A86: Two questions
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Two questions
Grams Family wrote:
> >On the topic of "compilers", I've always wondered why no one has ever
> >really thought of this approach (AFIK) to writing a "real" ASM compiler
> >for the 86.
> >
> >Remember the old ASM compiler on the 85? You had to type in all those
> >memory addresses backwards and all that. Why doesn't someone make a
> >program that converts from "normal" ASM to what AsmComp( would
> >recognize. I realize making a full fledged parsing engine in ASM is
> >rather difficult, but obviously a helluva lot easier to do than writing
> >a FULL FLEDGED compiler (I had a conversation/argument with someone on
> >IRC about this, and his idea was to have an editor, and you'd have to
> >select keywords via a menu, etc. The "compiled" programs would still
> >have to be run via an engine).
>
> I never had an 85, but I've been thinking about writing an assembler for
> quite a while. I've done some calculations, and I think I could do a pretty
> good one in under 10K (that estimate is probably a little too big, but I've
> never written an assembler before). The only problems I can see are: What
> if a program you write hangs the calc? Then you lose everything. The other
>
write an asm program that would run the asm program one line at a time and after
each line it would check to see if a certain key is pressed
> thing is that it's kind of hard to type anything on the calc. But I think
> I'll probably go ahead and do it anyway, as these problems aren't _that_
> bad. Also, I wouldn't make something that AsmComp would recognize, I'd just
> go directly to a compiled asm program. That would make for a smaller
> assembler, for one.
>
> I just got a really cool book on writing compilers and interpreters, so
> I've been wanting to try making one. And a Z80 assembler wouldn't be too hard.
>
> BTW, an "ASM compiler" is called an assembler. :)
>
> --Joshua
References: