choice of assembly tools - CP/M

This is a discussion on choice of assembly tools - CP/M ; I have recently been bitten by a retro-computing bug. I have pulled out my Kaypro 4-84 and, after about a week of research and trial and error, managed to get a kermit transfered via pip-modem and have established a serial ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: choice of assembly tools

  1. choice of assembly tools


    I have recently been bitten by a retro-computing bug. I have pulled out
    my Kaypro 4-84 and, after about a week of research and trial and error,
    managed to get a kermit transfered via pip-modem and have established a
    serial terminal connection to my linux machine (come to think of it I
    should have posted this message using this setup... I have been surfing
    the internet using it).

    I must say I am amazed at the amount of cp/m stuff out there. I've always
    used the Kaypro as a stand alone machine and access to more than what I
    have on floppy is awfully nice.

    This leads me to my dillema. I want to do some z80 asm programming but
    there are just so many tools to choose from! I'm hoping some cp/m asm
    programmers can give me some advice on their favourite tools and why they
    like them. An assembler, linker/loader, debugger, and disassembler are
    the things I'm looking for. I have more than enough information on the
    z80 instruction set than I probably need, although a good tutorial might
    be nice as well. I have basic asm experience on x86 using turbo assembler.

    If anyone prefers 8080 asm and thinks I should try it instead, I'd be
    interested to hear that as well.

    Thanks
    vYv



  2. Re: choice of assembly tools

    vYv wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > This leads me to my dillema. I want to do some z80 asm programming but
    > there are just so many tools to choose from! I'm hoping some cp/m asm
    > programmers can give me some advice on their favourite tools and why they
    > like them. An assembler, linker/loader, debugger, and disassembler are
    > the things I'm looking for. I have more than enough information on the
    > z80 instruction set than I probably need, although a good tutorial might
    > be nice as well. I have basic asm experience on x86 using turbo assembler.


    As far as assemblers/linkers are concerned, nothing beats the SLR
    components (Z80ASM, SLRLK, etc). I collected a bunch of them, and
    never really sorted them out, and dumped a zip file with the whole
    lot on Gaby some time ago. This was intended to allow someone else
    to sort them out. I think a SLR disassembler is included, which I
    have never used.

    For debugger/disassembler, I recommend my own ddtz. It is
    available on my site, download/cpm section. It includes a
    primitive disassembler. Dave Brown has recently made his Z80CODE
    disassembler (w source) available. It runs under MSDOS. Under
    CP/M proper, look for dazzlestar. It may be listed as DZSTAR, or
    DZ, not sure.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.



  3. Re: choice of assembly tools

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:32:02 -0500, vYv wrote:

    >
    >I have recently been bitten by a retro-computing bug. I have pulled out
    >my Kaypro 4-84 and, after about a week of research and trial and error,
    >managed to get a kermit transfered via pip-modem and have established a
    >serial terminal connection to my linux machine (come to think of it I
    >should have posted this message using this setup... I have been surfing
    >the internet using it).
    >
    >I must say I am amazed at the amount of cp/m stuff out there. I've always
    >used the Kaypro as a stand alone machine and access to more than what I
    >have on floppy is awfully nice.
    >
    >This leads me to my dillema. I want to do some z80 asm programming but
    >there are just so many tools to choose from! I'm hoping some cp/m asm
    >programmers can give me some advice on their favourite tools and why they
    >like them. An assembler, linker/loader, debugger, and disassembler are
    >the things I'm looking for. I have more than enough information on the
    >z80 instruction set than I probably need, although a good tutorial might
    >be nice as well. I have basic asm experience on x86 using turbo assembler.


    CBFalconer will chime in with a nice set of tools.

    I've used a fair lot of them and they all work. However it's personal
    preference as to what you may like. Try a bunch of them.

    >If anyone prefers 8080 asm and thinks I should try it instead, I'd be
    >interested to hear that as well.


    Not worth the effort for 8080 as you have the better Z80. Though for
    expereince of tying the 8080 subset you may learn the why the z80
    instruction set is prefered.

    Allison


  4. Re: choice of assembly tools

    CBFalconer wrote:
    [snip]
    > For debugger/disassembler, I recommend my own ddtz. It is
    > available on my site, download/cpm section. It includes a
    > primitive disassembler. Dave Brown has recently made his Z80CODE


    Dave Brooks, that is....

    > disassembler (w source) available. It runs under MSDOS. Under
    > CP/M proper, look for dazzlestar. It may be listed as DZSTAR, or
    > DZ, not sure.
    >


  5. Re: choice of assembly tools

    David R Brooks wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> For debugger/disassembler, I recommend my own ddtz. It is
    >> available on my site, download/cpm section. It includes a
    >> primitive disassembler. Dave Brown has recently made his Z80CODE

    >
    > Dave Brooks, that is....


    Sorry about that.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.



  6. Re: choice of assembly tools

    I used the DR package (MAC and SID) and always stuck to 8080 code so
    that everything would run on anything, anywhere.


    vYv wrote:
    > I have recently been bitten by a retro-computing bug. I have pulled out
    > my Kaypro 4-84 and, after about a week of research and trial and error,
    > managed to get a kermit transfered via pip-modem and have established a
    > serial terminal connection to my linux machine (come to think of it I
    > should have posted this message using this setup... I have been surfing
    > the internet using it).
    >
    > I must say I am amazed at the amount of cp/m stuff out there. I've always
    > used the Kaypro as a stand alone machine and access to more than what I
    > have on floppy is awfully nice.
    >
    > This leads me to my dillema. I want to do some z80 asm programming but
    > there are just so many tools to choose from! I'm hoping some cp/m asm
    > programmers can give me some advice on their favourite tools and why they
    > like them. An assembler, linker/loader, debugger, and disassembler are
    > the things I'm looking for. I have more than enough information on the
    > z80 instruction set than I probably need, although a good tutorial might
    > be nice as well. I have basic asm experience on x86 using turbo assembler.
    >
    > If anyone prefers 8080 asm and thinks I should try it instead, I'd be
    > interested to hear that as well.
    >
    > Thanks
    > vYv
    >
    >


  7. Re: choice of assembly tools

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > vYv wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >>
    >> If anyone prefers 8080 asm and thinks I should try it instead,
    >> I'd be interested to hear that as well.

    >
    > I used the DR package (MAC and SID) and always stuck to 8080
    > code so that everything would run on anything, anywhere.


    If anyone can find a copy, SLRMAC gives you that ability. SLR also
    had a set of macros for Z80ASM, but they were slower.

    BTW, I fixed the rude top-posting.

    --


    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    -- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
    "There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
    -- Thomas Matthews


  8. Re: choice of assembly tools

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:04:48 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:

    > As far as assemblers/linkers are concerned, nothing beats the SLR
    > components (Z80ASM, SLRLK, etc).


    Some good suggestions, thanks.

    > For debugger/disassembler, I recommend my own ddtz. It is
    > available on my site, download/cpm section. It includes a
    > primitive disassembler.


    I've been playing with this alot and I like it. I'm interested, why intel
    instead of zilog? Just wondering. Either is a learning experience for me
    (although intel is closer to what I know already). Probably good to
    understand both.

    Cheers
    vYv


  9. Re: choice of assembly tools

    On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:13:33 -0500, Barry Watzman wrote:

    > I used the DR package (MAC and SID) and always stuck to 8080 code so
    > that everything would run on anything, anywhere.


    I'm not too worried about anything beyond my own Kaypro, but if, for
    example, there is a difference in ease of use I'd be interested to know.
    I've read at least one blurb by someone who thought that the 8080
    instruction set was easier to program/more intuitive/more whatever than
    the z80's.

    cheers
    vYV


  10. Re: choice of assembly tools

    vYv wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:04:48 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > > For debugger/disassembler, I recommend my own ddtz. It is
    > > available on my site, download/cpm section. It includes a
    > > primitive disassembler.

    >
    > I've been playing with this alot and I like it. I'm interested,
    > why intel instead of zilog? Just wondering. Either is a
    > learning experience for me (although intel is closer to what I
    > know already). Probably good to understand both.


    Because I wrote it and I prefered the Intel mnemnonics. The
    extension to Z80 code uses the TDL mnemnonics. Once the
    assembler/disassembler were built it was much to hard to change
    over, and those modules were carefully compressed to minimize
    memory space used.

    --


    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    -- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
    "There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
    -- Thomas Matthews


+ Reply to Thread