22 Feb
2001
22 Feb
'01
11:52 p.m.
Dick:
Indeed. I'd prefer to stick with the Intel nemonics since the source
files that I have to compile, er, assemble, use the Intel nemonics.
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:39 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: 8080 Complier Recommendation
The mnemonics are quite different for the Z80, though. I think he wants to
stick with the Intel mnemonics, which are quite different from Zilog's and
which
some folks find somewhat easier to decipher.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edwin P. Groot" <epgroot(a)ucdavis.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: 8080 Complier Recommendation
Are you talking about an ::assembler::? If so,
Z-80 doesn't matter as
an assembler for the 8080, since Z-80 is a superset of 8080. Just don't
use
the Z-80 - specific opcodes. TASM reminds me of
Borland Turbo Assembler.
With regards to a higher-level language compiler, there might be
directives to specify 8080 or Z-80 opcodes in the object file.
Edwin
At 16:02 2/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello, all:
>
> Does anyone have a "favorite" compiler recommendation for the 8080?
>I have TASM, which I like for the 6502, but it only does the Z80, which
has
different
opcodes. Thanks.
Rich Cini