14 Jul
2024
14 Jul
'24
12:50 a.m.
According to Ralph Corderoy <ralph(a)inputplus.co.uk>:
It was a macro assembler. The macros generated assembler statements
that got assembled the normal way. I agree with the person that every
macro assembler I've ever seen did that. A semi-exception is the IBM
assembler that also had a PUNCH statement that put records into the
object file but I think that was only used to pass commands to the
linker.
The more relevant question is how they used the macros. If the macros
were used consistently for semantically higher level things, the
translator can use the semantics of the macros when translating.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(a)taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Oh, no wonder
the translator worked so well.
Well, doesn't it depend on whether VAX MACRO kept the macros as
high-level entities when translating them, or if it processed macros in
the familiar way into instructions that sat at the same level as
hand-written ‘assembler’. I don't think this thread has made that clear
so far.