Dr. Imre Bartfai email (remove spam text)
I definitely use CVASM16 and its predecessor the SPASM (the both are
virtually identical; the former supports more processor types, the latter
cooperates with PSIM, which is one of the most fine PIC emulators ever).
Advantages of them:
- small (below 20 kByte)
- robust (did not detect any (!) crash, or misbehavior)
- DOS-based (a high-rated criteria for me)
- supports MPASM, extended MPASM and Parallax mnemonics
- has a good built-in arithmetics
- incredible fast
- supports local labels - very fine feature!
- one can equates single bits (e. g. LED EQU RA.3)
- all standard register and bit names are known and supported (e. g. GIE,
TMR0) w/o any includes.
- does not support macros and conditional compile
- the constant format differs from that of Microchip (no problem for me as
SPASM is the primary choice)
- the arithmetics is a bit strange (exactly like a calculator: no
algebraic logic or parentheses, only strict left-to-right evaluation)
- the list file is slightly less informative than that of MPASM
All the code samples compile if you accept the differences written in
disadvantages. However, there are a lot of 8051-like samples (see Scott),
and it is simply clearer for me. Take e. g. the CJAE instruction...
Such way, the point #3 does not fit for me, rather the opposite.
I must say I'm happy with it and use MPASM only if I badly need it.
This is my $0.02 word.
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Bob Drzyzgula wrote:
In reply to: <19990506215918.W16131@02-098.007.popsite.net>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=asm
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the