Easy68K?

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:27 pm

Has anyone checked out this assembler:
http://www.monroeccc.edu/ckelly/EASy68K.htm

It has a very flexible assembler and a decent IDE. It output to binary and s records.
There is a simulator, for source level debugging. Of course, it doesn't emulate a Genesis, but it would be useful for debugging a routine.
The simulator includes a cycle counter.
You can insert a breakpoint in the code: http://linux.cis.monroeccc.edu/EASy68Kf ... c.php?t=38

It supports structured (High Level) assembly, which means you can write something like:
IF D1 <gt> #5 then
move.w #1, d0
ELSE
move.w #0, d0
ENDI

This would be nice for handling input and game logic in asm.

Ketsuban · Post by **Ketsuban** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:50 pm

I couldn't live without nameless temporary symbols, so I use AS.

Stef · Post by **Stef** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:55 pm

cdoty wrote:Has anyone checked out this assembler:
http://www.monroeccc.edu/ckelly/EASy68K.htm

It has very flexible assembler and a decent IDE. It output to binary and s records.
There is a simulator, for source level debugging. Of course, it doesn't emulate a Genesis, but it would be useful for debugging a routine.
The simulator includes a cycle counter.
You can insert a breakpoint in the code: http://linux.cis.monroeccc.edu/EASy68Kf ... c.php?t=38

It supports structured (High Level) assembly, which means you can write something like:
IF D1 <gt> #5 then
move.w #1, d0
ELSE
move.w #0, d0
ENDI

This would be nice for handling input and game logic in asm.

Cycle counter, that sounds interesting

I'm wonder if there is a 68000 assembler capable of optimise your ASM code (use moveq #0 instead of clear.l...), there are many tricks to optimise the ASM code, it would be cool if the assembler can handle it

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:58 pm

Quickman wrote:I couldn't live without nameless temporary symbols, so I use AS.

Yep you're right, there are local lables in macros, but not normal code.

I never use them normally, would be nice to have though.

ob1 · Post by **ob1** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:27 pm

Stef wrote:it would be cool if the assembler can handle it (optimisation) :)

If it existed, TmEE and I wouldn't exist !

I won't live without Easy68k !!! Great tool ! The one that made me learn 68k ASM !!!

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:03 pm

I converted the demo from my Sega Assembler to the assembler.

It can be downloaded from:
http://www.rastersoft.net/EASySega.zip

The only problem I had was that incbin adds a byte to the file on import.
This screws up the filesize and memory locations, after the incbin, unless it's at the end.

I proposed a fix for that on the forums. That should be fixed shortly.

One odd thing was that the movem instructions don't like spaces after the comma. Not a big deal.

I also modified my SegaChecksum program to automatically remove the header from the binary file.

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:24 am

Stef wrote:I'm wonder if there is a 68000 assembler capable of optimise your ASM code (use moveq #0 instead of clear.l...), there are many tricks to optimise the ASM code, it would be cool if the assembler can handle it

I think TOP was able to optimized assembly code, if I remember correctly. But, I'm not sure it performed optimizations like you mentioned.

ob1 · Post by **ob1** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:06 am

It seems to me that TOP replaces move.w #0,d0 with moveq #0,d0. I check it in 2 hours.

TmEE co.(TM) · Post by **TmEE co.(TM)** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:27 am

I'm downloading the assembler now, I'll try it out and when I get home. I guess that I will still use EDIT+SNASM68K(and AS80) after trying it out.

TmEE co.(TM) · Post by **TmEE co.(TM)** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:06 pm

I'm not gonna use it, this assembler doesn't like my program writing style and I like to keep my ASM programs with ASM extension not anything else (thing doesn't assemble anything without x68 extension). IDE is not very good too, the best IDE I know is QuickBASIC IDE.

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:08 pm

TmEE co.(TM) wrote:I'm not gonna use it, this assembler doesn't like my program writing style and I like to keep my ASM programs with ASM extension not anything else (thing doesn't assemble anything without x68 extension). IDE is not very good too, the best IDE I know is QuickBASIC IDE.

I've asked for a way to customize the extension. This bother me also, I'm not sure why.

I like the idea of structured asm, and the editor is easy enough to use.

But, I'll probably stick with as (from the GCC package) and Visual Studio 6. This is definitely the best IDE. We all know the QuickBASIC IDE sucks!

(I think I just started an IDE flame war, ooops!)

TmEE co.(TM) · Post by **TmEE co.(TM)** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:27 am

Flame war... ah $h1T, Easy68K IDE sucks and QB IDE does not !!! As much as I played with it, it didn't prove to be much better than notepad.
Everyone has his/her own preferred tools and I don't want to argue about it !!!

Stef · Post by **Stef** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:48 am

QB IDE is somewhat... primitive ?
I'm currently using CodeBlock and before i used DevCPP. Both offer the advantage of being free

TmEE co.(TM) · Post by **TmEE co.(TM)** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:39 pm

What do you mean by "being free" ???

Stef · Post by **Stef** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:52 pm

TmEE co.(TM) wrote:What do you mean by "being free" ???

They are freeware, compared to Visual Studio which is not

SpritesMind.Net

Easy68K?

Easy68K?

Re: Easy68K?

Re: Easy68K?

Re: Easy68K?