Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)
From: Randall Hyde (randyhyde_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/20/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Video Mode 13h in windows XP ... impossible?"
- Previous message: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: A (mild-mannered) defense of RosAsm"
- In reply to: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Next in thread: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Reply: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:15:46 GMT
<arargh402NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com> wrote in message
news:20nb30ls0vc1fpr9shtn9mgddnln7u2e3j@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:31:01 -0000, "Beth"
>
>
> If you convert a C header file to a NASM include file, you lose so
> much information that converting that file to anything else is
> pointless. That's why I chose to just go from C headers to what I
> need.
>
That's why an intermediate canonical format is such a good idea.
You keep as much semantic information as possible. Assemblers
that can't use it, ignore it. Those that can use it, do.
> I can only just barely read C, and I don't attempt to write anything
> more trivial than 'Hello, World!". So, I wouldn't be much help there.
> But, I am a wizz at Basic, and Assembler (x86 variety). I have
> forgotten most of the IBM 1401, System 360 & Nova Assemblers that I
> knew.
>
> I may look into this conversion project, but probably only as an
> onlooker.
Well, C->canonical form is only one part of the project.
The project also needs volunteers to write code that
translates from canonical form to a specific assembler.
That task is quite a bit easier than C->canonical form.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Video Mode 13h in windows XP ... impossible?"
- Previous message: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: A (mild-mannered) defense of RosAsm"
- In reply to: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Next in thread: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Reply: arargh402NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Canonical format for header files (was... who cares?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|