Ok so I'm still living in the distant past and using TASM & Devpac83 / Devpac8x, but I've decided it's time to try and get up to speed.. Thus I've downloaded SPASM.
Am I right in saying that SPASM should be able to correctly output .83p files? Is there a trick to it?
I use the following command:
SPASM test.asm test.83p
And I get an .83p, but it doesn't have the header and checksum generated... Whereas if I do:
SPASM test.asm test.8xp
It generates a perfect .8xp file.. Am I doing something wrong?
I've never used SPASM, but I think I will start. Try this:
Code:
spasm -DTI83 source.asm output.83p
For more information try here.
After reading that page, I want to start using SPASM as I have a few projects that I want to work on for the TI-82 STATS and TI-83 calcs.
I hope this helps!
Hmm, I only really build TI-83+ programs these days, for better or worse, for which I use the amazing Brass by BenRyves in combination with my BinPac8x tool, which together are part of the Doors CS SDK. Back in the day TASM+DevPac83 were my toolchain of choice as well. Good call though, Xeda.
Is Brass good for other calc models? I have been using your DoorsCS SDK, but I have only figured out how to make programs and apps for the TI-83+ series
Xeda112358 wrote:
Is Brass good for other calc models? I have been using your DoorsCS SDK, but I have only figured out how to make programs and apps for the TI-83+ series
I am almost positive that Brass can do a good job for the TI-83, and considering how similar the TI-82 is, I'd assume it would succeed there too. Aha! Yes, it can:
http://benryves.com/bin/brass/directives/binarymode.htm
Awesome, then I will stick with Brass, since I have everything already there, on my computer.
Thanks for the tips guys. It seems I'm doing it right, but .83p still aren't generating the proper header and checksum (for that matter, I ran a test for .86p files as well and they also failed). It's simply compiling it as if it were outputting a simply .bin file.
I'm going to post on the SPASM page here and see if BuckeyeDude can shine some light on this for me
http://wabbit.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=SPASM%20Commandline%20Arguments
No you're not doing anything wrong its a bug in spasm. I've fixed it an uploaded a new version. If you're working on linux, you'll need to wait for me to upload the source, looks like codeplex is upgrading TFS today.
Awesome, thanks!
Hurrah, I'm glad that we got everything worked out here. And welcome back, Buckeye; it certainly has been a long time since we have seen you around.
ooh, uploaded source?! =D
will this fix the bug with -V as well?
the linux version does this:
Code: spasm -V "ld a,1"
Pass one...
Pass two...
Done
*** glibc detected *** spasm: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer: 0x00000000004124a4 ***
I wasn't aware of this, but it appears that yes it is fixed. I would recommend also doing spasm -O -V " ld a, 1" as this will prevent a file from being outputted.
Not that it's a big deal, but I seem to be having an issue with the "-d" command line argument causing execution to hang, eg.
SPASM -dTI83P source.asm output.8xp
If I do this, program execution just freezes.. However if I do the following:
ECHO #define TI83P > temp.asm
TYPE source.asm >> temp.asm
SPASM temp.asm output.8xp
It works fine. Is this bug?
No its not a bug. -D is different than -d. On Windows unrecognized command line options are sent to the ATL module. The hang is because it is sitting in a message loop waiting for a command.
BuckeyeDude wrote:
No its not a bug. -D is different than -d. On Windows unrecognized command line options are sent to the ATL module. The hang is because it is sitting in a message loop waiting for a command.
Ah, excellent, it works now Thanks for clarifying that, Buckeye!
