🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12286@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
>In article <1969@mindlink.UUCP> a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) writes:
>>
>>> When I tried to compile my code using a68k, it didn't recognize the
>>> \A-F parameters.  Charlie?
>>
>>     Silly me, I didn't realize that those parameter numbers were
>> supposed to be limited to a single digit.  I whipped up a little
>> test program using a macro with 20 parameters (\1 through \20) and
>> it works just fine.  You should be limited only by available memory.
>> Go nuts!
>
>I think Walter was pointing out that A68K was not accepting \A-\F explicitly.
>Normally it would be a good thing for A68K to mimic Metacompco's behavior,
>but since this was an allegedly undocumented feature, this is not so
>important.

Actually, I hate to say this, but I believe that the metacompco way
is actually better in it's own way.  For instance, suppose I had the
following macro:

Blah    MACRO
\10: dc.b 0
\11: dc.b 2
\12: dc.b 5
        ENDM

..and then made this call..

   Blah   Lbl

I would expect my generated macro to produce this code:

Lbl0: dc.b 0
Lbl1: dc.b 2
Lbl2: dc.b 5

In the way that Mr Gibbs has done this, there is no way to have another
number immediately follow the parameter within the macro (unless I am 
mistaken..).  Therefore, having your parameters limited to a single char- 
acter would be advantageous.

Then again, having unlimited passable parameters is nice, too :)

>So, when can we expect A68K to handle 030/040 instructions?

(wishing I even HAD an 030 or 040)

W.Reynolds.

-- 
"I think, therefore I am." - Descartes               |          Only Amiga
"I know you are, but what am I?" - Pee Wee Herman    |    // makes .sigs like
"I think not, therefore I am not." - ?               |\\ //   this possible.
"I thought I think I was. Am I?" - Me, on Fri Nights | \X/