• AVR Freaks

Hot!Porting MPASM assembly to XC8

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
1and0
Access is Denied
  • Total Posts : 10999
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/05/06 12:03:20
  • Location: Harry's Gray Matter
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/03/24 12:43:26 (permalink)
0
Here are more MPASM Operators:
 

So which one is inferior and which one is superior? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Attached Image(s)

#21
Mark Yampolsky
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2009/04/03 18:50:36
  • Location: Russia Fryazino Moskow reg
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 09:27:16 (permalink)
4 (1)
Friends, is it normal that in the simulator debugger, when the ASPIC section of the code is executed, the visibility of the PC marker on the ASM source disappears? Step-by-step execution can be observed only on the C source and in the Program memory window.
 
#22
PStechPaul
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 2813
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/27 16:11:32
  • Location: Cockeysville, MD, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 12:22:37 (permalink)

 
#23
Mark Yampolsky
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2009/04/03 18:50:36
  • Location: Russia Fryazino Moskow reg
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 13:42:16 (permalink)
0
PStechPaul
Have you read...

Yes, Paul, I have read this document. But there is no and cannot be a description of the IDE in debug mode. And moreover, nothing can be written about the simulator.
And my question was just about debug mode.
Maybe I missed something. Then tell me where ...
post edited by Mark Yampolsky - 2020/04/28 13:43:40
#24
NorthGuy
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 6228
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/23 14:23:23
  • Location: Northern Canada
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 20:05:26 (permalink)
5 (4)
I always use "absolute mode", which IMHO gives you much more freedom and flexibility. It is no longer supported.
 
ORG works relative to the section start. CBLOCK doesn't work (not a big deal though). You probably can circumvent this by clever use of PSECT.
 
WHILE macros are no longer supported. They are so handy. I don't think I ever wrote any program without them.
 
EQU doesn't work under IF. I would call this a bug, but according to migration documents it is intentional.
 
Lots of other MACRO stuff is not supported. Looks like macros are meant more for text substitution as opposed to code generation.
 
I feel like I wouldn't get any benefits by using XC8 Assembler. If I switched to it from MPASM, I would feel like I'm programming in C, except that instead of nice C constructions, I would have to write all the instructions manually. What's the point of this?
 
#25
1and0
Access is Denied
  • Total Posts : 10999
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/05/06 12:03:20
  • Location: Harry's Gray Matter
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 22:16:39 (permalink)
5 (1)
NorthGuy
I feel like I wouldn't get any benefits by using XC8 Assembler. If I switched to it from MPASM, I would feel like I'm programming in C, except that instead of nice C constructions, I would have to write all the instructions manually. What's the point of this?

+1.  As I said in Post #3, the XC8 Assembler is less powerful than MPASM. I also don't see any gains or benefits going with ASPIC. :(
 
#26
1and0
Access is Denied
  • Total Posts : 10999
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/05/06 12:03:20
  • Location: Harry's Gray Matter
  • Status: offline
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/28 22:33:48 (permalink)
4 (1)
Mark Yampolsky
Friends, is it normal that in the simulator debugger, when the ASPIC section of the code is executed, the visibility of the PC marker on the ASM source disappears? Step-by-step execution can be observed only on the C source and in the Program memory window.

I would call that a bug. ;) Not able to single step thru ASPIC source code in an assembly psect is a disadvantage. 
#27
upand_at_them
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 584
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2005/05/16 07:02:38
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Status: online
Re: Porting MPASM assembly to XC8 2020/04/29 09:04:26 (permalink)
0
1and0As I said in Post #3, the XC8 Assembler is less powerful than MPASM. I also don't see any gains or benefits going with ASPIC. :(

 
This seems about right, though, given that the PICKit3 was worse than the PICKit2. Microchip is just being consistent. :)
post edited by upand_at_them - 2020/04/29 14:41:25
#28
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Commercial Version 4.5