DIS6502 - The Interactive 6502 Disassembler

[marcokitt2000]

6 hours ago, JAC! said:

File handling of the input stream and the pasers for reading XEX and other file types has been revised. Now, instead of simply returning "false" and a generic error message like "is corrupted or contains more then 4096 segments", you now get a specific error message for every error situation. The texts are not yet great, but there is a different text not for every error which should already be helpful. With this instrumentation you can see that in the sample file given above there is a file with broken DOS file links (corrupted file) and one which is valid file, but not a valid XEX file with and $FFFF header. The last file loaded was OK, so no error message.

 

 

Daily is updated.

 

 

UPDATE: Name of the inner EXE and number sectors are now also output in the status message and the message texts have been revised already.

 

Note that adding freely selected sectors does not yet work. That's next.

Great shop Peter,

 

Thnx for all the hard work.

 

 

Gr.

Marco

[+JAC!]

Update: Selecting, loading individual disk sectors from 90k (SD) / 130k (ED) and 180k (DD) now works again. The first 3 sectors of DD images are assumed to be 128 bytes.

 

[ascrnet]

Hi @JAC!

 

Is version 02-23-2022 is it normal that the segment submenu does not work?

Also when opening a binary .xex file it does not mark the records that are in the open file?

greetings

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by ascrnet
.xex

[+JAC!]

3 hours ago, ascrnet said:

Questions: Is version 02-23-2022 is it normal that the segment submenu does not work?

Answer: Thanks for reporting. This has been fixed with https://sourceforge.net/p/dis6502/git/ci/b77606e531843fcd18cbc3f06d46be2b02b90908/, daily is updated.

Question: Also when opening a binary .xex file it does not mark the records that are in the open file?
Answer: What exactly do you mean with this?

 

 

 

 

[ascrnet]

1 hour ago, JAC! said:

What exactly do you mean with this?

in the previous version the system registers used by the disassembled program are marked, e.g. :

[marcokitt2000]

Hello Peter,

 

I see that you are very busy with reprogramming dis6502 4.0.

Thnxx i was very busy with our kitchen building.

I hope on the weekend i can test the latest dis6502 beta.

Keep the good work.

 

 

Gr. Marco

[+JAC!]

Yes, I've also received support from Thomas Scott Giese who has provided fixes and some good ideas. And besides that I keep on adding tests primarily. I haven't pushed a new binary though.

[marcokitt2000]

On 4/1/2022 at 9:44 PM, JAC! said:

Yes, I've also received support from Thomas Scott Giese who has provided fixes and some good ideas. And besides that I keep on adding tests primarily. I haven't pushed a new binary though.

Hello Peter,

 

Thnxxx for the info i will wait for a beta version or test version.

Keep the good atari work.

 

 

Gr.

Marco

[marcokitt2000]

On 4/1/2022 at 9:44 PM, JAC! said:

Yes, I've also received support from Thomas Scott Giese who has provided fixes and some good ideas. And besides that I keep on adding tests primarily. I haven't pushed a new binary though.

Wow Peter,

 

You are very busy with dis6502 when is a beta test version coming? Or a rc versio 4.0?

But thank you for all these good work.

 

Gr.

Marco

[+JAC!]

On 4/11/2022 at 12:27 PM, marcokitt2000 said:

You are very busy with dis6502 when is a beta test version coming? Or a rc versio 4.0?

 

Sorry, but I'm still in the process of making the logic parts work and creating real unit tests for them. This weekend I've completed the parts dealing with keeping the disassembly listing in memory (finally no linked lists anymore) and the logic to save it to .asm files in the different forms (one file, one file plus one include, main file with all includes, main file with chained includes). This gives me the confidence that for all of this, I'm really done and don't have to touch it again.
 

 

 

In other words: I am not yet on the UI layer and the link between the different controls doesn't work yet. In the original code, there basically every control calling every other control. I want to change that to a regular MVC approach, so I can ultimately also test the UI logic without clicks.

[marcokitt2000]

20 hours ago, JAC! said:

 

Sorry, but I'm still in the process of making the logic parts work and creating real unit tests for them. This weekend I've completed the parts dealing with keeping the disassembly listing in memory (finally no linked lists anymore) and the logic to save it to .asm files in the different forms (one file, one file plus one include, main file with all includes, main file with chained includes). This gives me the confidence that for all of this, I'm really done and don't have to touch it again.
 

 

 

In other words: I am not yet on the UI layer and the link between the different controls doesn't work yet. In the original code, there basically every control calling every other control. I want to change that to a regular MVC approach, so I can ultimately also test the UI logic without clicks.

Wow Peter,

 

Thnx for the info.

 

Gr. Marco

[Alfred]

There appears to be a bug in the address counting, to wit:

 

L3200       JMP ECHO
L3203       JMP ECHOS
L3206       JMP PRINTS
L3209       JMP CRLF
L320C       JMP GETSTRNG
L320F       JMP SUSPEND
L3212       JMP MIOSUSP
L3215       JMP RESUME
L3218       JMP MIORESUM
L321B       JMP OPNULOG
L321E       JMP CLSULOG
L3224       JMP RDUSER    ====>> This should be $3221 not $3224

 

Second quirk further on:

 

L3254       JMP TOASCII
L3257       JMP TOSTR
L325A       JMP ECHOB
L325A       JMP ECHOC  =====> duplicate address
L325D       JMP DATESTMP

 

 

Edited March 8 by Alfred

[marcokitt2000]

Hello Peter,

 

Are there any updates for version 4.00 or is this still the backside.

We have time to wait use the older version.

 

 

Gr. Marco

[+JAC!]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:15 AM, Alfred said:

There appears to be a bug in the address counting, to wit:

 

L3200       JMP ECHO
L3203       JMP ECHOS
L3206       JMP PRINTS
L3209       JMP CRLF
L320C       JMP GETSTRNG
L320F       JMP SUSPEND
L3212       JMP MIOSUSP
L3215       JMP RESUME
L3218       JMP MIORESUM
L321B       JMP OPNULOG
L321E       JMP CLSULOG
L3224       JMP RDUSER    ====>> This should be $3221 not $3224

 

Second quirk further on:

 

L3254       JMP TOASCII
L3257       JMP TOSTR
L325A       JMP ECHOB
L325A       JMP ECHOC  =====> duplicate address
L325D       JMP DATESTMP

 

 

In which version of DIS6502? And could you please provide the workspace.

On 3/8/2023 at 11:45 AM, marcokitt2000 said:

Hello Peter,

 

Are there any updates for version 4.00 or is this still the backside.

We have time to wait use the older version.

 

 

Gr. Marco

My focus is currently on WUDSN still.

[Alfred]

10 hours ago, JAC! said:

In which version of DIS6502? And could you please provide the workspace.

 

How would I know what version ? There's no version number in the About box. Just says (c) 2017 by you.

[kenames99]

hi,

  good point Alfred, I always wondered why no real version number. that really should be added in.

 

Ken

 

[+JAC!]

23 hours ago, Alfred said:

How would I know what version ? There's no version number in the About box. Just says (c) 2017 by you.

Then that is very old intermediate version. The latest stable 3.6 does have it.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/dis6502/files/dis6502/3.6/

[Alfred]

Here's a bug in the latest 3.6: When you delete the first user equate that you added, it deletes it from the box, but the next time you open the user equates, it's back. You can delete any other equates and they stay deleted, but the very first one you create, no matter how many times you delete it, it always comes back.

[+JAC!]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:33 PM, Alfred said:

Here's a bug in the latest 3.6: When you delete the first user equate that you added, it deletes it from the box, but the next time you open the user equates, it's back. You can delete any other equates and they stay deleted, but the very first one you create, no matter how many times you delete it, it always comes back.

Thanks for reporting. I've filed it as https://sourceforge.net/p/dis6502/bugs/29/. I don't think there'll be a fix in 3.6 but I'll make sure it'll be fixed in the newer version. There the whole equate handling will be reimplemented.