[Coco] CoCo gcc project

[jdaggett at gate.net]

ASxx is often referrred to the Motorola freeware cross assemblers 
written by app engineers. They are rudimentary and not real full 
featured. They just get the basic job done. They will handle macros 
and some psuedo opcodes.

AS11, AS09, and the variants of AS68K have been used by many a 
univeristy student. 


james

On 3 Nov 2003 at 16:52, KnudsenMJ at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 11/3/03 7:20:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> dbree at duo-county.com writes:
> 
> > Personally, I'd line to see
> >  all OS9 code remain PIC.  RSDOS could go non-PIC, or for
> >  convenience, we might let it be PIC.
> 
> Sounds like we really need a PIC/absolute option for RSDOS, and so why
> not have it for OS9 also (for faster, smaller  L2 code)?
> 
> >  I think a common assembler and linker could be
> >  used.  The biggest difference would come in the linker stage.  The
> >  linker would simply build a different module depending on whether
> >  it was OS9 or RSDOS.
> 
> Is there any RSDOS convention for object modules?  That is, have there
> been any assemblers for RSDOS that didn't assemble everything as one
> big source file? If not, then there is no RSDOS convention, and we
> should carry OS9's RMA convention over to RSDOS.
> 
> I agree that the linker is really where the difference is output for
> RSDOS versus OS9.
> 
> >  Finally, what assembler/linker?  Do we use AS or try to do a
> >  totally rma/rlink compatible routine.  We do already have RMA
> >  rebuilt as a cross assembler (OS9 only for now), and we still have
> >  rlink to go.  If most people prefer to go to AS, we have all the
> >  source to rebuild it to whatever we want.
> 
> I never heard of AS until now.  Since we have RMA already, and no
> reason not to port it into RSDOS as well, why not stick with what we
> all know?  --Mike K.
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco