Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: Craig Graham Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.codewarrior,scea.yaroze.programming.codewarrior Subject: Re: GTE asm with CodeWarrior Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:46:46 +0000 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 99 Message-ID: <36B58615.D0E8F6E4@hinge.mistral.co.uk> References: <78dk65$nd41@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <36AAF8E8.E85886FB@hinge.mistral.co.uk> <78f5ll$nd46@chuka.playstation.co.uk> <36AB8574.82169D5F@hinge.mistral.co.uk> <78le37$gpd8@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1-s34-66-telehouse.mistral.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: chuka.playstation.co.uk scee.yaroze.programming.codewarrior:442 scea.yaroze.programming.codewarrior:385 Sean Kennedy wrote: > > The pro-dev version is 3 years of development ahead of the yaroze version. > > Unfortunately, I believe that is not the case. At least from what I have > seen and asked questions about. It is. I use (well did until the end of last year) the ProDev version for work. As we have the Yaroze and Pro versions, I can honestly say that CW ProDev version 4 is a long way ahead of the NY compiler & IDE in terms of tools provided and the list of bugs. The NY compiler is related to the core of ProDev v2 (years old). > The Yaroze Code base started when the CW IDE for Commerical PSX > development was in its 2nd year. But the two are twinned. Nope.The NY compiler hasn't moved a muscle in 2 years. > Namely on its resource base. > Again, I mentioned that bits were yanked out. THAT and only that > constitutes the difference. The graphics are re-arranged, and the > debuggers are different, but the IDE has plenty of similarity. Thats wrong. The debugger in the current Pro compiler is a development of the one in the yaroze setup - it's been in development for longer thats all. It also has the required plugins to talk to the real developer hardware. > Trouble is, When is the Next CW for Net Yaroze version coming out? > That may be never... I cannot guess. Good guess from what I can tell. > > > That does not mean that the Yaroze system can be used for Assembler > > programming. > > Yes it does. Download the ARS library source code from my SCEE site > > for an example..... > > Sean is a bit tick-ed here... > > ARS shows and proves that one can develop code using Assembler for the PSX_NY. > > From the way you responded, {and you were not alone} you indicate that the > Yaroze cannot be programmed in assembler. Re-read what I wrote. I said you COULD do r3000 assembler with CW, and said where to get an example of it in practise (which I wrote by the way). > You can. Why would Metrowerks AND Sony both mention that you could. > You just needed to talk with Sony for someone to get you a code snippet. Do you read replys, or what? Dumb ass. > > R3000 asm is not what was being discussed. That's easy. And permitted. > > What assembler code was it? As the subject line says, GTE assembler. This is not the same as R3000 assembler at all (extra op-codes, etc), and I'm not going to say any more about it here 'coz I'll get my butt kicked off SCEE developer support for it. > So the discussion is about using assembler code developed {or copied from} > for use with the commercial development system. Or compiling assembler > code that was developed by someone [Their own content] with access to the > CD_PSX, and they could not make it work on a Yaroze development system. Read the messages and pay attention man. You're making yourself look a tad silly.... > What I was referring to was the GTE registers. > > Those are not documented. They aren't supposed to be. That's my point. > -sean If you'd put a post like this on a dodgy hacker board, they'd eat you for lunch 'coz they'd expect you to have worked it out already. (Disclaimer: I don't support that, and don't reckomend it - in fact I'm just guessing, forget I said anything). If you put the post on the pro news groups they'd wonder what all the fuss is about. If you put it here, you're not getting anywhere..... Craig.