[A89] Re: assembly "translation"

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: [A89] Re: assembly "translation"
From: Olle Hedman <alh@home.se>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:59:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <p05100300b920af3daa6a@[192.168.0.3]>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020602204823.0359ae70@pop.home.se> <p05100300b91ea97418b6@[192.168.0.3]> <001701c2098d$79d8b840$0201a8c0@binky> <p05100300b91ffc19637d@[192.168.0.3]> <5.1.0.14.0.20020602204823.0359ae70@pop.home.se>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

At 07:40 2002-06-03, you wrote:

>thanks for your info... I'm closer to have it compile now :P
>Apparently jbsr is not recognized by a68k, what's the difference
>between jbsr and jsr?.
>Last question: for what I've saw, the way to write hexadecimal
>numbers is with a $ in front of them, so I thought that converting
>0xC8.w into $c8.w should work... but it's not.
>again,
>thanks a lot for your help,
>ra.-

jbsr doesn't exist. it is a pseudo-op that is changed to a bsr or jsr 
depending on what seems best when optimizing.

You should check the documentation to TIGCC. it has documentation of the 
syntax of both a68k and gnu as (which is the syntax with % and 0x and such) 
There you can find the answer of any question you have about this.

///Olle

References:

[A89] Re: assembly "translation"

From: Olle Hedman <alh@home.se>

[A89] assembly "translation"

From: "R.A." <funkaster@mac.com>

[A89] Re: assembly "translation"

From: "Niklas Brunlid" <e96nbr@efd.lth.se>

[A89] Re: assembly "translation"

From: "R.A." <funkaster@mac.com>

[A89] Re: assembly "translation"

From: "R.A." <funkaster@mac.com>

Prev: [A89] Re: assembly "translation"
Next: [A89] functions addresses
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread