PASM

[Will Coleda]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Adam Russell <ac.russell at live.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/12 7:53 AM, Will Coleda wrote:
>>
>> We've been saying for years now that users shouldn't use PASM, but PIR
>> (and lately, a push to NQP or winxed instead of PIR). Are any of our
>> users currently using PASM?
>>
>> Moritz, JimmyZ, Whiteknight, and I are investigating what a parrot
>> without PASM looks like in the coke/rm_pasm branch.
>>
>> So far for this branch:
>>
>> * parrot will no longer try to parse foo.pasm as a PASM file.
>> * t/ tests that happen to use PASM are being rewritten in PIR
>> * t/ tests that test PASM itself are being dropped
>> * generated constant files are now PIR instead of PASM - drop in
>> replacement except for s/.pasm/.pir/
>> * some doc updates
>>
>> Still to come:
>> * more work to be done updating t/
>> * more doc updates
>> * convert/drop any remaining .pasm files
>> * remove PASM compiler from IMCC
>
>
> But PASM opcodes will remain valid in PIR, right?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev

opcodes are opcodes, yes. PIR gives you a lot of syntactic sugar over
PASM, but you can still use straight opcodes.

Some changes that came up a lot doing test conversions in branch:

.pcc directives don't exist in PIR. You have to use ".sub".
PASM-style direct register access (P4, S2) doesn't work in PIR. you
need "virtual' register access ($P4, $S2).
don't need "end" at the end of a block of PIR. (since everything is in a .sub)
.macro_const works fine in PIR.

-- 
Will "Coke" Coleda