Re: A92: serious help here please
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A92: serious help here please
Robert Caldwell schrieb:
>
> {{You need to download the fargo toolkit to be able to program in 92
> assembly.
> It contains an assembler and a linker (among other things). You can't
> just
> type in the assembly code and send it, you have to assemble + link it
> first.
> Theoretically you could do it in a hex editor, type in the opcodes, find
> out
> all the relative addresses and hardcode them in, but you'd still have to
> make
> your brain output (compressed?) relocation data. In short, you'd waste
> all
> your time if you memorized the numbers of the opcodes and typed them in
> like
> that, and you wouldn't be getting yourself anywhere. So use assembly
> language, not machine code, and you probably will never need to know the
> opcode numbers, unless you write a debugger or something like that. The
> fargo
> docs (they come with the fargo toolkit) detail the format of .asm files
> you
> need to use, as well as how to make library calls (which include rom
> calls, as
> rom calls are treated as calls to the tios lib (which isn't really a
> lib, but
> you use it like one...just read the docs to see)). The VAT is very hard
> to
> use, and certainly not for a beginning programmer. No matter how
> experienced
> you are with other languages, assembly is an almost completely new and
> different adventure from them, and you can't assume that just because
> you can
> do file access in C that you can do it in 92 assembly. Also, file
> access
> under Fargo will not be stable until Fargo 0.3.0, which I suspect will
> be
> released simultaneously for the 92 and for the 92+ (I think that's why
> it
> hasn't come out yet). Anyhow, in 92 assembly data can be stored in the
> executable and will be retained from one run to the next. Then you
> quote
> something about making a romcall, which you then pass off as being badly
> written, and non explanatory. This it may be, I don't know, because
> that is
> detailing making a rom call for a TI-8X calc (I couldn't tell you which,
> I've
> never programmed one). HL is something on a z80, hence not for the 92.
> You
> might be less confused if you only read docs about assembly on the 92.
> Rom
> calls on the 92 are made by pushing the parameters backwards onto the
> stack,
> and then doing a "jsr tios::romcallname", then popping the parameters
> back off
> the stack. As a side note, rom calls often destroy registers d0, d1,
> a0, and
> a1, so you should prepare for that before calling one. However, you can
> learn
> all this from the docs that come with fargo, and the tutorials (the one
> I used
> was 68kguide.txt I don't know if it has been updated for fargo II.
> However,
> the only difference for a beginning is the file format...the explanation
> of
> the individual instructions and other programming issues is still very
> helpful). After you get these, you can also download some simple code
> from
> the TI-92 assembly source directory on ticalc.org. Reading source
> always
> helps in learning the language (although it can be very hard to read
> uncommented assembly source...try to find some that is commented.)
> Finally, I
> would like to advise you that assembly language has a very steep
> learning
> curve. On one hand I want like to say don't give up, but on the other
> hand if
> you're getting impatient with it before even getting an assembler, maybe
> it
> just isn't the thing for you.}}
>
>
>
>
> Actually, I downloaded all the 92 stuff off of ticalc.org's pub site. I
> unzipped all the learning packages and found the file I've been hoping
> was there, "68kpm.pdf" (or something similar). It shows the command,
> it's binary equivelant, and all combinations. I have also read up on
> some old commodore material, and what a coincidence, they both have
> similar codes. I guess I didn't need that much help after all. BUT the
> thing is, I know PCasm, so I appreciate you not telling me what "isn't
> the thing for [me]."
Well, as much as I know you( from your long letters written to this list and
first telling us how GOOD you are and then asking (sorry) stupid questions his
answer was correct. A.K.
> To be precise in what I'm about to do is: (a) make
> an assembler on the PC like a68k.exe, (why,there already exists one, if you
wrote an integrated developping machine running under w95...)
> (b) make a shell using the
> assembler I make, (c) build an external unit sort of like the E2 (but
> with more crap like time, date, 4-calc-link, cpu to run code(but for this aim
you got to find out all about the TI-ROM connection to the hardware, geil, as
young germans intersested in computer-programming would say, disassemble 1.5 Mb
of code...) and extra
> memory), and finally (d) make a program to talk with the external unit.
>
> I started this little "venture" last night and completed 2 commands
> already. I'll probably do it every once in a while (when I get bored),
> so I'm unsure of when this will be complete (but unlike some of you
> people--I have no school AND no work to go to).
>
> I figure (a) will be complete by the end of this month, (b) by the end
> of the next month, (c) by the end of this year, and (d) by the end of
> january. I'm saying this to give me enough time--before, it was set to
> not be done until the end of next year anyway (army and me having to
> learn it), but since I got a medical discharge and I've learned 92asm in
> one day, I moved my plans up a little.
>
> Yes, I do have a lively imagination, but that doesn't mean I'm not a
> "doer."
>
> -Rob
> p.s. don't steal my plans either (because if you do, I'll just make
> whatever you make better...=)
Whow, sounds like you're god in person. A.K.
To everybody on this list : I don't like persons who tell they learned
"everything about that" in about one hour after having posted questions that are
answered somewhere in the docs and telling us then how stupid we all are in a
reply to the reply they got, so excuse my sharp talking here, but I remember the
last thread that Rob started not too long ago that took the same course
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
References: