MartinB wrote:
There are versions 2.1 and 2.2 in the sourceforge download area but 2.2 doesn't seem to want to run under XP so I went straight for the default download of which 2.0 works fine. However, even 2.0 complained that MSVCRTD.DLL was missing so I had to copy this across from BeebEm into my dis6502 folder.
Yeah, that's because they're distributing a debug build of the executable instead of generating a release build (which wouldn't require that DLL).
MartinB wrote:
In the attached zip there is the Commstar disassembly and the modified atari.equ file which should be used to replace the supplied one. Note that the example output file isn’t very Beeb bespoke since I’ve only got a handful of OS calls in the equate file thus far.
Therefore, all that needs to be done is to expand the atari.equ file with as many of the OS routines as possible and with as many of the hardware addresses as possible.
Ah-hah, that's the dull work I thought I could do. OK, so the question is - where's the most definitive list of OS routines? I believe there are undocumented ones and such which should probably be included, that I wouldn't find in the official Acorn manuals?
MartinB wrote:
You can also create a User equates file and load it separately which could be used for things like BASIC routines and locations but for games it’s probably only sensible to have the OS calls, the OS memory stores and the hardware addresses.
Hmm ... I assume that's because you mean that games/complex apps wouldn't make use of the standard BASIC routines. Assuming it's just more that would be added to the list, though, wouldn't we just include them anyway, even if they weren't used? Why separate them into another list?
MartinB wrote:
Maybe someone (Rich, Tom, Steve etc.) has these already in a text file for use in their assembler such that it could be pretty much pasted in to the atari.equ file? Might need to change things like EQU to ‘=’ but pretty straightforward I would think.
OK, let's give it a few days and see if anyone has the list already ... otherwise, I don't mind typing them up.
MartinB wrote:
Anyway, have a play and see what you think – no big deal if you don’t fancy it but I’ve already used it once tonight on a spin-off task and it was just what I needed.
Exactly. I just thought a PC-based one might prove to be a bit easier to read ... maybe even then load into a text editor like Notepad++ and come up with a colour code for syntax highlighting ...
Sam.