(1 / 3)
Date: August 15, 1985 19:03
From: KIM::SUTTLES
To: @SYS$MAIL:ENGINEER.UAF,SUTTLES
I have very recently (a few minutes ago) finished a command parser for ASM68. The old method used to be done in DCL, and was very messy and slow. The new method is in assembly, is still messy, but it SHOULD be faster. Along the way, I found several bugs in Intermetric's stuff that I had to work around, plus the usual quota of DEC bugs. I think I caught them all, but you know me! As usual, if any of your programs should be caught, or killed, I will disavow any knowlege of my actions. All seriousness aside, if the new way doesn't work, you can use the old way by saying OLDASM68 instead of the (former and now new) ASM68 command. sas
(2 / 3)
Date: August 15, 1985 19:05
From: KIM::SUTTLES
To: @SYS$MAIL:ENGINEER.UAF,SUTTLES
Oh yeah, if you do find bugs in my program, please tell me about them. ... gently. Guess who?
(3 / 3)
Date: August 16, 1985 17:43
From: KIM::SUTTLES
To: @SYS$MAIL:ENGINEER,SUTTLES
Per Jim Morris' request, I have changed ASM68 yet again. This time, I tried to trap errors and warnings from the compiler and return them so that command files executing the ASM68 command may successfully determine if the ASSEMBLER exited with an error (or warning) status. If they exit the program after complaining about errors without passing along the fact that they are exiting in an error (or warning) status, there isn't anything I can do. But at least the command file will tell you different things now, where it used to always say that everything was fine. sas
Aug 15, 1985