Changes to the assembler headers

[Philip Ludlam]

On 5 Jan, in message <gemini.3ff9b40f0097851055f7%tony at tony-lx.mk-net.demon.co.uk>
  Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Philip Ludlam <philip at philipnet.com> wrote in message
><e57a1e6c4c.philip at philipnet.com>
>
>[snip]
>> 
>> I've whittled it down to:
>>   *do objasm -I <OSLib$Path> s.test -o o.test -desktop @
>> 
>> ARM AOF Macro Assembler 3.28 (Acorn Computers Ltd) [20 Jun 2003] Error:
>> File "s. at .oslib.Hdr.OS" could not be opened Error: Bad GET or INCLUDE at
>> line 1 in file s.test
>>     1 00000000  GET oslib.Hdr.OS
>> Assembly terminated: 2 Errors, 0 Warnings
>> 
>> Which, to me, shows that it's the -desktop argument which is fsck-ing
>> objasm.
>> 
>
>Ah. I've never used that syntax, so I've not seen the problem. May I ask why
>you're not using a Makefile?

This is a test, as in minimal case, which was part of my bug report to
Castle. There's no point using a Makefile as that would complicate
matters.

>However, it seems that OBJASM is seriously broken in this respect. I don't
>know how many of the ex-Pace gurus still subscribe to this list, and it may
>be worth airing the problem in c.s.a.p to see if anyone else has experience
>with this. The chances of Castle fixing it in the short term are pretty low
>IMHO.

They (as in Kevin) was touting that they haven't released their 'final'
version, so there's hope that they will fix and release it. But there
has been no mention of a time frame for this :-( .

>Meanwhile, it is evident that whilst it is ObjASM that's broken, what I have
>done has exacerbated the problem. If you find that OSLib is unusable like
>this, then I guess I'll have to reverse the change, at least until ObjASM is
>fixed. Not pretty, and it makes cross-assembly a problem, but it may be the
>only way in the short term. Let me know what you think. Does anyone else
>here have any contribution to make?

I'll be downgrading to the previous version I've been using: 6.40 .
So far, I don't have any dependencies on the changes in 6.60 and I can
always incorporate any changes I need - as long as I don't fall foul of
the (L)GPL for any software I release. So perhaps I'll be sticking with
plain old 6.40 :-) .

Yours,

Phil L.
-- 
http://www.philipnet.com               http://director.sourceforge.net
          f y cn ndrstnd ths cn y gv m  jb s  cmptr prgrmmr?