Pelles C > Bug reports

Issue with symbol defined by CATSTR

(1/2) > >>

Vortex:
Hello,

Below, the symbol Sample1 is not defined correctly :


--- Code: ---level=1

@CatStr(<Sample>,level) CATSTR <test>,level

--- End code ---

The output is :


--- Code: ---.echo @CatStr(<Sample>,level)

.echo Sample1

"Sample1"
Sample1
--- End code ---

The correct assignment should output :


--- Code: ---"test1"
test1
--- End code ---

Code tested with Poasm Version 12.00.1

Vortex:
Hi Pelle,

Thanks for replying my bug reports

Here is another attempt to solve the issue but this one didn't work too :


--- Code: ---level=1

Sample # <level> CATSTR <test>,level
--- End code ---


--- Code: ---Test.asm(13): error: Invalid use of 'Sample'.
Test.asm(13): fatal error: Invalid use of '#'.
--- End code ---

Pelle:
We'll see. What is really needed is a simplified, non-bloated, non-MASM-ish syntax. But since this is 2023, I can.t really see this happening...

Vortex:
Hi Pelle,

Poasm is a very good assembler and it's not bloated. Today, an assembler without a powerful macro engine does not mean much. You did a lot for this tool and in my modest opinion, you should preserve the current state of the macro engine. Modifying radically the macro engine could break a lot of code.  I never asked from you to implement exotic features to Poasm, the forum records are supporting my arguments. We know that maintaining a toolset like Pelles C is not an easy job. My personal opinion is that there is no need to add any new features to Poasm. All what we need is to correct those bugs. The macros can do a lot to support code written with Poasm. What we have so far :

- With thanks to Steve Hutchesson , we can use the master include file of Masm32 with Poasm.
- Converting the import libraries to include files is very easy.
- The Masm32 and Masm64 SDKs can support Poasm again with thanks to Hutch.
- As a long time user of Poasm, I believe that we can create interesting projects.

You are mainly interested in developing the C compiler and the IDE. Naturally, you are right in your choices and I can understand you. All my desire is to cooperate with you and the other forum members to eliminate those bugs. Thanks for your efforts.

Pelle:
Hello,

Trust me, it is bloated... I have the source code...  ;D

You may need a powerful macro engine when only/mostly programming in assembly, but I strongly suspect this is a fairly small group not getting any larger (with any assembler, not just POASM).

When POASM was new (like 2005), there were many wishes for more MASM features and I got carried away. I wish I hadn't because after that I have spent way too many hours, days, sometimes weeks to make old macro examples continue to work with more recent changes/fixes. This is really the problem: almost every change to POASM takes longer than it should, but any attempt at really improving things would take even longer (so not an option).

I will try to fix what you have reported recently, but we are getting closer to a point when it's just not worth the effort...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page