> To the wider community: BTW. For fun, I used imcc to convert the .imc to
> a .pasm file, but them imcc couldn't run this file (trouble with
> labels). Should this have worked?
In PASM mode the whole file is compiled at once. IMCC as well as
assemble.pl has troubles with duplicate local labels, which are not a
problem when they are in different compilation units in an .imc source
file.
IMCC could easily mangle local labels, but OTOH I don't see any reason
to compile .imc to .pasm and then compile the latter.
Wasn't there a thought of renaming the imcc executable to "parrot"?
It would seem rather unfortunate if either
(a) "parrot" creates bogus .pasm files, or
(b) "parrot" chokes on valid .pasm files,
such as those produced by... parrot.
I'm not sure which one is the case, but they both seem undesirable as
anything but a short-term "we know it's really broken and will get to
it" state.
Mitchell
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Glencross)
Subject: Re: Something to pass the time.
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:02:36 +0200
Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the wider community: BTW. For fun, I used imcc to convert the .imc to
> a .pasm file, but them imcc couldn't run this file (trouble with
> labels). Should this have worked?
In PASM mode the whole file is compiled at once. IMCC as well as
assemble.pl has troubles with duplicate local labels, which are not a
problem when they are in different compilation units in an .imc source
file.
IMCC could easily mangle local labels, but OTOH I don't see any reason
to compile .imc to .pasm and then compile the latter.
> Nick
leo
