| |
Optimus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 122 |
C64 crossdeveloping suggestions?
Yep. I am motivated to start coding something on the C64 again. I need to use some helpful tools that will speed up developing and make things less frustrating. I am searching for crossdeveloping tools on the C64.
I am already considering kick assembler. But I might want to hear more suggestions. Btw,. is there a C64 emulator coming with internal assembler? Something like the thing I use on CPC, the Winape32 emulator/assembler? That would be great! |
|
... 66 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
Quote: Quoting Oswaldmany assemblers are only good to make your code look like a highly scientifical unreadable c sources
Not all of us find "highly scientifical c sources" unreadable you know. :-) There's a point to all the metacode, though it may not be obvious at first.
beginners shouldnt be advised to use assemblers where even putting the code to a specified address needs days of learning, and unnecessary complexity. and as it shows there's confusion even amongst who use these assemblers (fill vs no fill) |
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Oswald: No confusion, just different ways of doing things, with different sets of advantages and disadvantages. It is very true though that for someone who is just learning to code ca65 is a bad choice, but I haven't gotten the impression that Optimus belongs in that category. As for the complexity it sure is there, but as already stated it is only unnecessary if you don't utilize the functionality it brings. |
| |
Dbug
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 5 |
Somebody mentioned xa65, it's also what I'm using.
Would be nice to find some kind of comparative table showing the various features of the various assemblers (support for "extra" opcodes, 6502/65c02/65816/variants, conditional assembly, macros, includes, etc...) because I really have no idea of how XA compares to KickAss, or how KickAss compares to CA65 or Acme :-/
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
so is it possible to compile sources without the linker and the awkward segments ? dont think so. ca65 is also a bad choice for one who is not familiar with c compilers. imho its a huge overkill and gives an unnecessary complexity for the average c64 project. |
| |
kamelito
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2006
Posts: 14 |
Don't know if its relaunch64 fault or KickAss but it generate an error if you put kickass on a folder with spaces (ex program files)
Regards
Kamel
|
| |
Devia
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 401 |
I like ca65 for the larger projects with makefiles and shit. Works pretty well and has all the config options you'd ever need (almost).
I also use it for the small and simple type-assemble-run type of stuff, although I must admit that the hotkey setup for that in UltraEdit is a bit cumbersome: ca65.exe -o "%p%n.o" -t c64 "%f" & ld65 -o "%p%n.prg" -t c64 "%p%n.o" & codenet.exe -n 10.0.1.64 -x "%p%n.prg"
..for some reason cl65 doesnt work for me.. can't remember why.
Why isn't anyone mentioning DASM, btw? Small, simple, fast, has '.' local labels \o/..
no one ever used it? or is it crap for some reason I never discovered? (i used it for years).
|
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1055 |
IMHO ca65 is the best 6502 assembler there is, but it's not a beginner's tool. Load up turbo assembler on real hw if you want to learn.
|
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1627 |
@Devia: I have also used DASM a lot in the past. It's nice. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11114 |
Quote:so is it possible to compile sources without the linker and the awkward segments ? dont think so.
it is. you can make ca65 behave almost exactly like 6502tass (or whatever that TASS thing is called). you dont really have to bother about the linker in that case at all. (but ofcourse, it defeats the whole purpose of using ca65 then)
|
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1055 |
Quote: Quote:so is it possible to compile sources without the linker and the awkward segments ? dont think so.
it is. you can make ca65 behave almost exactly like 6502tass (or whatever that TASS thing is called). you dont really have to bother about the linker in that case at all. (but ofcourse, it defeats the whole purpose of using ca65 then)
It's like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver: it may eventually get the job done, but wouldn't it be more efficient to just use a hammer? Use the right tool for the job. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Next |
