You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have another weird bug to report: when I declare instructions without parameters (and sometimes even with), the said instruction isn't recognized. For instance:
#bits 8
#ruledef
{
#labelalign 4
ex => 0x00
cpy => 0x01
}
main:
ex
Doesn't compile. But if I just invert the declaration of ex and cpy:
#bits 8
#ruledef
{
#labelalign 4
cpy => 0x01
ex => 0x00
}
main:
ex
Now it compiles perfectly.
Everything works fine if I remove the #labelalign, so I guess it's the culprit, but I don't understand why. Also, I can put anything instead of #labelalign such as #blabla, this gives the same result - the #blabla is not recognized as invalid.
I think it may be closely related to #55, so feel free to close this issue if it is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ClementNerma
changed the title
First declared instruction without parameter isn't recognized
First declared instruction without parameter isn't recognized when using #labelalignNov 9, 2020
ClementNerma
changed the title
First declared instruction without parameter isn't recognized when using #labelalign
First declared instruction without parameter isn't recognized when using directive in #ruledefNov 9, 2020
Hi!
I have another weird bug to report: when I declare instructions without parameters (and sometimes even with), the said instruction isn't recognized. For instance:
Doesn't compile. But if I just invert the declaration of
ex
andcpy
:#bits 8
#ruledef
{
#labelalign 4
}
main:
ex
Now it compiles perfectly.
Everything works fine if I remove the
#labelalign
, so I guess it's the culprit, but I don't understand why. Also, I can put anything instead of#labelalign
such as#blabla
, this gives the same result - the#blabla
is not recognized as invalid.I think it may be closely related to #55, so feel free to close this issue if it is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: