Orion_ Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 The RMAC windows binary on Reboot's website is incorrect. (it's an ELF file) Also the version I had of RMAC/RLN had a bug with ".long" alignment which didn't work for example in a GPU code (it wasn't aligned to long, but to word !) The RMAC/RLN version I had with the Raptor package is good and align correctly. So maybe update the RMAC/RLN package from Reboot's website ? Thank you. Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh3-rg Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Yeah I suppose so, people have been ordering me to "update the ****ing site" more and more often. My bad. Will make it just point to somewhere sensible instead of outdated and arsed files. Edited February 3, 2015 by sh3-rg 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3169450 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion_ Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Sorry, I guess I'm currently bothering too much reboot's members But that is what you get when you tell people to really start using your tools (CJ might hate me, I sent at least 2 bugs in the Raptor engine, through I correct one of them, and found a workaround for the second) Edited February 3, 2015 by Orion_ 3 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3169569 Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (CJ might hate me, I sent at least 2 bugs in the Raptor engine, through I correct one of them, and found a workaround for the second) Re-creatable bug reports are good! Finding the spare time to fix them... 2 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3169614 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Bug reports for RMAC/RLN are always welcome, especially if they come with good detail and a small snippet of code that demonstrates the bug. Edited February 3, 2015 by Shamus Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3169647 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 using rmac v1.3.3 jan 31 2015 volume_table_1: dc.b $00,$0f,$1f,$2f,$3f,$4f,$5f,$6f,$7f,$8f,$9f,$af,$bf,$cf,$df,$ef,$ffMAX_SLIDER_VALUE_1 equ *-volume_table_1-1 cmpi.b #MAX_SLIDER_VALUE_1,(a5) This produces Error: illegal byte-sized relative reference Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175006 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Another bug is SPACING equ $cCONTTXTTAB: dc.b 0-$0A*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 each line produces Error: expression out of range Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175045 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkoVitch Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Another bug is SPACING equ $c CONTTXTTAB: dc.b 0-$0A*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 dc.b 0-$0B*SPACING/2+320/2 each line produces Error: expression out of range Wouldn't that give you (for the 1st line) -220 which is out of range? I am computing it as 0-(($B*$c)/2)+(320/2) = -220 dc.b will be -127 to 128 range Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175324 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion_ Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) don't forget parenthesis !! I remember having bugs with RMAC not calculating correctly some basic arithmetic without parenthesis. Edited February 11, 2015 by Orion_ 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175327 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure if the original MADMAC followed proper precedence rules or not, or if it did a strictly L-to-R evaluation. Have to check my documentation. EDIT: According to the MADMAC documentation, "Expressions are evaluated strictly left-to-right, with no regard for operator precedence. ... However, precedence may be forced with parenthesis or square brackets." I'm pretty sure that RMAC, being based on MADMAC, follows the same rules. Perhaps a switch to have it follow precedence rules is in order? Edited February 11, 2015 by Shamus 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175365 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Wouldn't that give you (for the 1st line) -220 which is out of range? I am computing it as 0-(($B*$c)/2)+(320/2) = -220 dc.b will be -127 to 128 range dc.b should be a value 0 -> 255 its is not a signed number and I would hazard a guess that no matter what number you put in it should take the bottom 8 bits. A warning maybe but not an error 0 - ($b*$c)/2 +(320/2) 0- (11*12)/2 + (320/2) 0 - 66 + 160 94 The code is from devpac which I am tinkering with If you do everything L to R each operation at a time the answer is 130 so that is still a valid number Edited February 11, 2015 by Seedy1812 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3175488 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 dc.b should be a value 0 -> 255 its is not a signed number and I would hazard a guess that no matter what number you put in it should take the bottom 8 bits. A warning maybe but not an error 0 - ($b*$c)/2 +(320/2) 0- (11*12)/2 + (320/2) 0 - 66 + 160 94 The code is from devpac which I am tinkering with If you do everything L to R each operation at a time the answer is 130 so that is still a valid number If I some extra brackets the compilation error disappears dc.b 0-($0B*SPACING/2)+(320/2) Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3176620 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Personally I like the idea of having RMAC obey precedence rules, but have a feeling it would break compilation of old code (though it seems it's already doing that). 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3176699 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Another I noticed is moveq #-8,d0 produces a warning / error ( at work at mo so cannot say what - will update when I get home ) edit : message is Error: expression out of range Edited February 14, 2015 by Seedy1812 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3176891 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) This fails text_start: dc.b "hello world" text_length equ *-text_start new_buffer: ds.b 100 move.b #12 , new_buffer+text_length but this works text_start: dc.b "hello world" text_end: text_length equ tex_end-text_start new_buffer: ds.b 100 move.b #12 , new_buffer+text_length Edited February 14, 2015 by Seedy1812 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3177693 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I have a strange macro error .macro Soff1 z1, z2, z3, z4, z5, z6, z7, z8, z9, z10, z11, z12, z13, z14 dc.w 0,0 dc.l 0 dc.w ( \z3 )-( \z1 ),( \z4 )-( \z2 ) dc.w ( \z5 )-( \z1 ),( \z6 )-( \z2 ) dc.w ( \z7 )-( \z1 ),( \z8 )-( \z2 ) dc.w ( \z9 ) -( \z1 ) ,( \z10 )-( \z2 ) dc.w ( \z11 )-( \z1 ) ,( \z12 )-( \z2 ) dc.w ( \z13 )-( \z1 ) ,( \z14 )-( \z2 ) .endm ; z1, z2, z3, z4, z5, z6, z7, z8, z9, z10, z11, z12, z13, z14 Soff1 0, 0, -77, 79, -91, 90, 101, 96, 105, 103, -101, 109, -89, 111 ;Soff1 0, 0, -77, 79, -91, 90, 97, 96, 105, 103, -97, 109, -89, 111 ; z7 97 ok 98 fail ; z11 -97 ok , -98 fail The macro produces an error test.s 15: Error: missing close parenthesis ')'test.s 15: Error: missing close parenthesis ')' one each for Z7 and Z11 Edited February 17, 2015 by Seedy1812 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3179694 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Latest RMAC 1.3.5 fixes bugs reported in posts #6, #7, and #15. Thanks for the bug reports Andrew! Edited February 19, 2015 by Shamus 4 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3180969 Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Latest RMAC 1.3.5 fixes bugs reported in posts #6, #7, and #15. Thanks for the bug reports Andrew! And that is why nobody should be using SMAC. 3 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3181216 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagChris Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The 'Reboot way' is to release games, tools, source code, libraries and programming languages.. to help people get started, the show people how easy it can all be. Your way seems to be to hide in backwater forums making potshot snide comments at everyone else while producing fuck all and going round in circles going 'oooeeeooooeeeooooeee I'm a dev, look, VJ + STE code! whoohooo!' Go back in time 10 years, you'll be happier there I know which way I prefer. The Reboot way is to overblow themselves and count themselves as better than they actually are. None of you guys are anywhere near as good as you make yourselves out to be. A little bit of talent and a lot of Bull*0*& quite frankly. It's too bad CJ. You are a hard worker. You could be great. But you won't acknowledge when you're wrong or when there are those who are better than you that you could learn from. Your own ego has stuck you in mediocrity. Along with the rest of Reboot. No one is hiding anywhere. We need places free from you. Free from where you guys can insult other developers with carte blanche impunity but any imagined slight and you guys descend on a non-reboot approved thread until it gets locked. So let's see what happens if it carries on in a 'reboot approved' thread. And as for vasm having to 'keep up' with smac if it ever gets a madmac syntax module? Yeah... that would probably be the other way around where smac would find itself scrambling to keep up. And I'm sure you guys realize this. @SHrug-kid Of course I care. Just not what you guys think. Especially you Shruggie. You're absolutely disingenuous. And only the disingenuous would believe your nonsense and spin. And that's where they belong. With you. Anyways I've said all I am going to. All that needs to be said. Ignoring both of these threads now. Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3185074 Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 O.M.G. are you for real? Count ourselves better than everyone else? For real? Coming from someone who leaps from JS3 to JS4 to JS5 because, lets face it, you think you're better than everyone else on AA - so much in fact you have to have your own private forum for your own private non-development. And it's so busy with your 4 users that you have to hide threads from the public, hahah. You and the other 3 people you have posting there, lol, including Liard - excellent bunch of comrades you have selected. Integrity level: sewer. How many releases has your 'amazing not reboot/aa forum' noted for 2015 so far? none? Woah, calm down there cowboy, that's far too much happening. Sign me up RIGHT AWAY! I don't want to be great, I don't want to be a hard worker. I want to be me. Who do you want to be? You don't seem to know. I'm wrong plenty of times. I freely admit it. Everyone is wrong plenty of times. What I can't stand are people making false claims like 'this is the most ossomness assembler evar and I don't know my pants from my hat!' or 'Look, I'm working on a BASIC for the Jaguar, I'll be ready about 2048 once I get joypads working because really, I don't know feck all, but look, 900fps!' - Trying to develop a basic when you have no fundamental knowledge of the hardware it's targetted to, or even a working API to bolt into it... doomed to failure. Learn the H/W, write the API, bolt it to a language. Bish. Bash. Bosh. Job done. 'Your' way seems to be Bitch. Bash. Botch. The fact that ggn and myself, with no real knowledge of BASIC compilers prior, took the source for a basic, and bolted it to RAPTOR in 48 hours shows how utterly clueless you guys are being going round and round in circles. RB+ is a hack, but you know what? It works, it's fast, and it's powerful. It's out, and we'll update and support it. Does that sound like Ego? I just said 'it's a hack' and 'no real knowledge' - meanwhile, your proclaimed 'magnitudes easier' coder has produced errr fuck all. Literally. FUCK. ALL. You have to be commended for your enthusiasm, but your execution is sadly lacking. You seem to be operating under the assumption that we want to release 3D magnum opera masterpieces on the Jaguar - we don't. We want to make fun games. We want to give people the tools to make fun games. Nobody wants to see fart-inflated beach balls jerking around the screen, even if they look impressive. If the game is shit (which it most likely will be) then whats the point? Maybe you should ask the people in the Jaguar HSC this month if they enjoyed Kobayashi Maru. Do I claim KM is the most ossum game ever, as you claim I should due to my ego problem? No, in fact, I really hate the game. I can't stand it. It's my game, and I hate it. I'm happy other people love it, and yes, I can take some pride in that, but for me, KM is boooooooring! It exists as a way to tech test the rotary controls in Rebooteroids publically in a 'fun' way. Ego bashing enough for you there? Keep breathing in the fumes, and please, please feel free to ignore me, this thread, this entire forum, the world around you and common sense. 6 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3185115 Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh3-rg Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The Reboot way is to overblow themselves and count themselves as better than they actually are. None of you guys are anywhere near as good as you make yourselves out to be. A little bit of talent and a lot of Bull*0*& quite frankly. It's too bad CJ. You are a hard worker. You could be great. But you won't acknowledge when you're wrong or when there are those who are better than you that you could learn from. Your own ego has stuck you in mediocrity. Along with the rest of Reboot. No one is hiding anywhere. We need places free from you. Free from where you guys can insult other developers with carte blanche impunity but any imagined slight and you guys descend on a non-reboot approved thread until it gets locked. So let's see what happens if it carries on in a 'reboot approved' thread. And as for vasm having to 'keep up' with smac if it ever gets a madmac syntax module? Yeah... that would probably be the other way around where smac would find itself scrambling to keep up. And I'm sure you guys realize this. @SHrug-kid Of course I care. Just not what you guys think. Especially you Shruggie. You're absolutely disingenuous. And only the disingenuous would believe your nonsense and spin. And that's where they belong. With you. Anyways I've said all I am going to. All that needs to be said. Ignoring both of these threads now. Wrong thread, name calling, ranty bollocks paranoid meltdown. 10/10. A+++++. Would LOL again. 6 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3185136 Share on other sites More sharing options...
+remowilliams Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Well that was quite a performance. Though I suppose it's true that when you're in a tumbleweed forum with four other people who know absolutely nothing about what they are discussing that it must be far easier to ignore very inconvenient things like facts, reality, the world around you and common sense. Historic note: there once was a forum where one overblown pompous developer and his nutsack swinging court ruled with an iron fist descending mercilessly and relentlessly with 'carte blanche impunity' on everything and everyone he didn't agree with. Hint: It wasn't this one. Anyway, back to RMAC/RLN then... 7 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3185177 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedy1812 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Another quick little bug .text .gpu .org $3000 ; keep compiler happy pack r1 unpack r1 The both produce the same byte code. Pack should have reg 1 set to 0 Unpack should have reg 1 set to 1 At moment they are both set to 0 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3190379 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Thanks for the report. Now we have version 1.3.6. 4 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3190512 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zerosquare Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Small bug in RMAC: in DSP code, a jr instruction to a non-existent label gives a "Error: relative jump out of range" error message instead of complaining about the label not existing 1 Quote Link to comment https://forums.atariage.com/topic/234634-rmacrln/#findComment-3535565 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.