16-bit instructions using program counter relative addressing should use 16-bit offsets about cocoassembler HOT 2 CLOSED

After looking at more source code, the initial problem as described above, isn't actually the correct solution. In fact, the example given above is actually correct:

$3F00 AF8C01        START    STX 1,PCR

The post-byte codes of 8C01 is correct, as the 1 can be interpreted as a direct value due to it's size. If the statement were instead:

START    STX $0101,PCR

Then the post-byte code should be 8D0101 as the value is extended. This brings up problems in other areas of the source code as well. Consider the following example:

VAR     FDB 0
        STX <VAR,PCR

In this case even though VAR is technically an extended value, the explicit direct addressing forced by < means that it should be interpreted with 8C instead of 8D. Since direct values are handled by an explicit Operand class, that means the above statement throws an error. Fundamentally, structural design decisions regarding the handling of direct and extended values as Operand classes really need to be refactored to push extended / direct recognition to the Value sub-classes instead.

from cocoassembler.

Fixed by PR #54

from cocoassembler.