gnupic: Thread: gpasm

Preface:

I'm taking the initiative to release gpasm version 8. This DOES NOT have
James' approval. This is not to say that he wouldn't approve - I've just
been unable to contact him (again). This also should be construed as a
developer's release (you know what that means :).

Here's a brief history of gpasm:

About a year ago, James released version 0.0.7 and then disappeared off of
the map. Over the next few months, I released versions 0.0.7a , 7b, 7c,
and the latest 0.0.7d . 

James' disappearance was attributed to a change of jobs. Unfortunately,
he didn't give us a way to contact him. However, I know where he lives
and so I visited him personally (jun/jul '99). We then exchanged a few
e-mails and in October he combined my changes with patches that he's
received elsewhere and made a preliminary version 0.0.8:

http://www.meer.net/~jamesb/scrap/

Because of some e-mail quirks, I didn't receive notification of this
release until 11nov99 - right about the time I was moving. So I was unable
to get any patches to version 8 until early december. That's when I
submitted this:

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.0.8a.patch

or the whole tarball:
http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.0.8a.tar.gz

This is a critical patch for the 18cxxx family.

James hasn't responded to this patch request or any other e-mails. The
last I heard from him was in November... Bummer.

Which brings us to now. Over the last few weeks, I've made significant
changes to gpasm. Specifically, I switched the Makefile infrastructure to
use gnumake's automake stuff. This change is not absolutely necessary, but
it does give you a whole lot more flexibility on building and installing
gpasm. I've also changed the numbering scheme so that the 'micro version'
that James has been using all along is now the 'minor version'. That is,
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've also have fixed some bugs in the directives and applied Steve Tell's
patch (to fix the bug in the HIGH directive). A few enhancements related
to the 18cxxx family have also been made. The latest revision I've got is

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.8.2.tar.gz

Sorry for being a renegade, but the changes to gpasm are necessary for the
soon to be released version 18 of gpsim.

Regards,
Scott

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.

Perhaps it might be time to move the code into a CVS server?

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.

-- 
James Cameron   ####@####.####   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

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

On Thu, 06 Jan 2000,  James Cameron wrote:
> 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.

I would definately like to see 16F8xx series added.  I haven't gotten the
brandy-newest tarball yet, as I just got back from Christmas vacation, but I
plan to do that as soon as I am done reading my backed-up e-mail.  I just got
some 16F873/74's from Digikey and I can't wait to try them out.  The 10-bit A/D
looks great for some projects here at college.

-- 
-Sam

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Sam Colwell wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000,  James Cameron wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I would definately like to see 16F8xx series added.  I haven't gotten the
> brandy-newest tarball yet, as I just got back from Christmas vacation, but I
> plan to do that as soon as I am done reading my backed-up e-mail.  I just got
> some 16F873/74's from Digikey and I can't wait to try them out.  The 10-bit A/D
> looks great for some projects here at college.

Sam,

http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.8.4.tar.gz

has the following processors:

gpasm -l

gen      p12c508  p12c509  p16c54   p16c55   p16c56
p16c57   p16c58   p16c62   p16c63   p16c64   p16c65
p16c71   p16c74   p16c83   p16f83   p16c84   p16f84
p16f877  p18cxx2  p18c242  p18c252  p18c442  p18c452
sx18     sx20     sx28  

If someone wants to compile a list of missing processors, I'd be glad to
add them to gpasm.

BTW, 0.8.4 has a patch from James Cameron that fixes a core dump if a
macro contains no assembly instructions.

Scott

Hi All,
	I have been lurking around this group for awhile. I've noticed
that gpasm supports a large variety of Pic processors...I was wondering
what all of you are using as programmers for these little wonders?? 
This would pertain to the Linux OS.... (Parallel or Serial...)
	I am interested in programming the 16F84, 16C71, 16C711 and the
16F877.
	Thanks for any info!!

--Mike

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Scott Dattalo wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Sam Colwell wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 06 Jan 2000,  James Cameron wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I would definately like to see 16F8xx series added.  I haven't gotten the
> > brandy-newest tarball yet, as I just got back from Christmas vacation, but I
> > plan to do that as soon as I am done reading my backed-up e-mail.  I just got
> > some 16F873/74's from Digikey and I can't wait to try them out.  The 10-bit A/D
> > looks great for some projects here at college.
> 
> Sam,
> 
> http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.8.4.tar.gz
> 
> has the following processors:
> 
> gpasm -l
> 
> gen      p12c508  p12c509  p16c54   p16c55   p16c56
> p16c57   p16c58   p16c62   p16c63   p16c64   p16c65
> p16c71   p16c74   p16c83   p16f83   p16c84   p16f84
> p16f877  p18cxx2  p18c242  p18c252  p18c442  p18c452
> sx18     sx20     sx28  
> 
> If someone wants to compile a list of missing processors, I'd be glad to
> add them to gpasm.
> 
> BTW, 0.8.4 has a patch from James Cameron that fixes a core dump if a
> macro contains no assembly instructions.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 

On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 09:08:26PM -0600, Michael W. Bogucki wrote:
> 	I have been lurking around this group for awhile. I've noticed
> that gpasm supports a large variety of Pic processors...I was wondering
> what all of you are using as programmers for these little wonders?? 
> This would pertain to the Linux OS.... (Parallel or Serial...)

I use a parallel port programmer, either Dontronics DT-001 or the
Bojan Doban P16PRO design.  For the code on Linux, I use picprg, which
I have modified for 12C509.  Someone has forwarded me the modifications
for 16F877, but I haven't tried them yet.

-- 
James Cameron   ####@####.####   http://quozl.us.netrek.org/

I've just started in the PIC/LINUX world but I use the "picp" programmer for
Microchips PICSTART Plus serial programmer.

  http://www.cosmodog.com/pic/


> I was wondering
> what all of you are using as programmers for these little wonders?? 
> This would pertain to the Linux OS.... (Parallel or Serial...)
--
Anthony

On Sun, 09 Jan 2000, you wrote:
> Hi All,
> 	I have been lurking around this group for awhile. I've noticed
> that gpasm supports a large variety of Pic processors...I was wondering
> what all of you are using as programmers for these little wonders?? 
> This would pertain to the Linux OS.... (Parallel or Serial...)
> 	I am interested in programming the 16F84, 16C71, 16C711 and the
> 16F877.
> 	Thanks for any info!!

I use the PicStart Plus programmer from Microchip, along with picp 0.4 from
Cosmodog.  

I have been playing around with C2C-plus 3.3.1e (beta) from Paul
Baranov.  The linux version is free for non-commercial use.  It compiles C into
assembly which I then use gpasm to compile.

-- 
-Sam

Hi All,
	I just wanted to thank all of you for giving me suggestions as to
what programmer to use under Linux. I finally decided to go with the
PicStart+ system. I was lucky enought to find one on ebay for cheap. (Now
I just have to upgrade the firmware...and I'm ready to burn!!)
Thanks again!!
--Mike B

On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Michael W. Bogucki wrote:

> Hi All,
> 	I have been lurking around this group for awhile. I've noticed
> that gpasm supports a large variety of Pic processors...I was wondering
> what all of you are using as programmers for these little wonders?? 
> This would pertain to the Linux OS.... (Parallel or Serial...)
> 	I am interested in programming the 16F84, 16C71, 16C711 and the
> 16F877.
> 	Thanks for any info!!
> 
> --Mike
> 
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Scott Dattalo wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Sam Colwell wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 06 Jan 2000,  James Cameron wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > I would definately like to see 16F8xx series added.  I haven't gotten the
> > > brandy-newest tarball yet, as I just got back from Christmas vacation, but I
> > > plan to do that as soon as I am done reading my backed-up e-mail.  I just got
> > > some 16F873/74's from Digikey and I can't wait to try them out.  The 10-bit A/D
> > > looks great for some projects here at college.
> > 
> > Sam,
> > 
> > http://www.dattalo.com/gnupic/gpasm-0.8.4.tar.gz
> > 
> > has the following processors:
> > 
> > gpasm -l
> > 
> > gen      p12c508  p12c509  p16c54   p16c55   p16c56
> > p16c57   p16c58   p16c62   p16c63   p16c64   p16c65
> > p16c71   p16c74   p16c83   p16f83   p16c84   p16f84
> > p16f877  p18cxx2  p18c242  p18c252  p18c442  p18c452
> > sx18     sx20     sx28  
> > 
> > If someone wants to compile a list of missing processors, I'd be glad to
> > add them to gpasm.
> > 
> > BTW, 0.8.4 has a patch from James Cameron that fixes a core dump if a
> > macro contains no assembly instructions.
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > 
> > 
> 
>