![]() ![]() ![]() It's still faulty and contains syntactical errors even if the old dasm makes a few assumptions (such as taking the low byte of a 16-bit value) and assembles it to a functional binary. That doesn't make the previous code correct. If allowing 16-bit values for 8-bit operands (and automatically taking the low byte) is so important to anyone then they can Ī) use a version of dasm that allows it, and stick to itī) maintain a local version of dasm and keep that up to date with only the changes they approve/like.ī) fork dasm and re-implement the version you like. In other words, there is always the capability to assemble old code, if you wish. Previous code can always use previous versions of dasm. Fixing those expressions allows people to use the latest DASM, but aside from that, it makes the code a better example. His stated purpose in releasing the code was to provide an example for other programmers. Instead he is now updating it which is super-generous, since he completed the project so long ago. It was generous of him to do that, and it would be entirely reasonable for him to just say, this code works with DASM 2.20.11. People who have code that compiles and works only with some old version of DASM, and who refuse to update their code, are certainly welcome to continue using their old released his code 6 years ago. ![]() But a feature like that, in a tool which is free to its users and costly to its maintainers, is firmly in DIY territory. Ideally, it would be possible for the user to demote it to a warning (like an inverted form of GCC's -Werror options). The explanation of my position is simple: I believe the benefits of this particular error check outweigh the costs. "Backwards compatible" in this context is a polite way to say never add any new error checking. I think the extreme position is breaking other peoples code, please explain why you disagree. I'm advocating we keep the mature compilers backward compatible so as not to break other programmers pre-existing not have ever changed his code if the warning from the compiler had not turned into a show stopper to prevent it from working. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |