On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Adam Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/5/12 7:53 AM, Will Coleda wrote: >> >> We've been saying for years now that users shouldn't use PASM, but PIR >> (and lately, a push to NQP or winxed instead of PIR). Are any of our >> users currently using PASM? >> >> Moritz, JimmyZ, Whiteknight, and I are investigating what a parrot >> without PASM looks like in the coke/rm_pasm branch. >> >> So far for this branch: >> >> * parrot will no longer try to parse foo.pasm as a PASM file. >> * t/ tests that happen to use PASM are being rewritten in PIR >> * t/ tests that test PASM itself are being dropped >> * generated constant files are now PIR instead of PASM - drop in >> replacement except for s/.pasm/.pir/ >> * some doc updates >> >> Still to come: >> * more work to be done updating t/ >> * more doc updates >> * convert/drop any remaining .pasm files >> * remove PASM compiler from IMCC > > > But PASM opcodes will remain valid in PIR, right? > > > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
opcodes are opcodes, yes. PIR gives you a lot of syntactic sugar over PASM, but you can still use straight opcodes. Some changes that came up a lot doing test conversions in branch: .pcc directives don't exist in PIR. You have to use ".sub". PASM-style direct register access (P4, S2) doesn't work in PIR. you need "virtual' register access ($P4, $S2). don't need "end" at the end of a block of PIR. (since everything is in a .sub) .macro_const works fine in PIR. -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
