> Would this be an appropriate structure for now?
It looks fine, but I do hope we can review this soon so we don't have
duplicate files.
Joep, I would like to see some JAT-Pack for testing so I know what
samples/libs work. Well, at least so I know what samples/libs do not
give errors.
I had another thought. I hope Kyle is reading. Since JAT translates
JAL to C. Both JAL and SDCC will result in similar ASM blocks for each
statement. This means you are Translating JAL ASM to SDCC ASM. So,
take the SDCC ASM and place it into JALv2.
Let's take this JAL code for example:
var byte a = 1
if a == 1 then
a = 2
end if
Compiled with JalV2, this will make this ASM:
; 41 var byte a = 1
movlw 1
datalo_clr v_a
movwf v_a
; 42 if a == 1 then
movlw 1
subwf v_a,w
btfss v__status, v__z
goto l__l223
; 43 a = 2
movlw 2
movwf v_a
; 44 end if
l__l223
l__l225
sleep
goto l__l225
end
Compiled with SDCC, this will result in different ASM:
; 41 var byte a = 1
????
; 42 if a == 1 then
????
; 43 a = 2
????
; 44 end if
????
So, if you take the ASM from SDCC, and place it into the JALv2
compiler, JALv2 could possibly support other processor types. Yes,
this is more difficult then simply using SDCC, but it keeps us with
one compiler, and possibly cleaner ASM code?
Matt.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
