gnupic: gpasm
Subject:
Re: gpasm
From:
Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date:
7 Jan 2000 02:01:26 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.05.10001061944050.23567-100000@tempest.blackhat.net>
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, James Cameron wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Your actions are necessary in order to provide for the survival of
> gpasm as an open source software package. Don't worry, this sort of
> thing happens quite often. You appear to have made all reasonable
> attempts to contact the primary author.
It's hardly a hostile take over - as soon as James resurfaces I am more
than willing to relinquish control.
>
> Perhaps it might be time to move the code into a CVS server?
>
In fact I have- but more so for gpsim.
> See if you can get a telephone number?
>
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:37:59AM -0600, Scott Dattalo wrote:
> > instead of gpasm-0.0.8 it's now gpasm-0.8.0 . Subsequent development
> > tweaks will bump the micro-version. I'd appreciate any feedback on this.
>
> I agree with your change.
>
> Some day soon I intend to add 16F877 to gpasm if it isn't already there.
> I added the 12C509 stuff and it has been working faultlessly for me
> since then.
Michael Shiloh asked about the C63. It really is trivial to add another
processor to the table (as long as there's an existing instruction set to
accompany it). gpasm covers all pics except for the 17cxx stuff. So I'll
add everything that's not there already. BTW, you can see the supported
processors (without having to dive into the code) by gpasm -l (minus ell).
Scott
