[13:49]	Join: Metcalf joined #corewars
[13:49]	<Mizcu> hi Met
[13:49]	<Metcalf> Hi :-)
[13:54]	MSG: <Metcalf> Ping timeout: 245 seconds
[13:55]	Join: Metcalf joined #corewars
[14:01]	<Metcalf> Hi Mizcu
[14:02]	<Metcalf> Are you up to anything interesting?
[14:05]	<Mizcu> not atm
[14:10]	MSG: <Metcalf> Ping timeout: 245 seconds
[14:10]	Join: Metcalf joined #corewars
[14:13]	Join: OoS joined #corewars
[14:15]	MSG: <Metcalf> Ping timeout: 245 seconds
[15:07]	MSG: <OoS> Ping timeout: 245 seconds
[15:40]	<jamesstan> Sorry to keep pestering everyone (well, Mizcu ;)), but can it always be assumed that unless otherwise specified, immediate addressing should be used?
[15:41]	<Mizcu> yes
[15:41]	<jamesstan> OK, Thanks
[15:42]	<Mizcu> unspecified addressing is preprocessed as immediate
[15:42]	<jamesstan> OK
[15:42]	<jamesstan> Hmm.
[15:43]	<jamesstan> I've just read something (after asking) that says a $ may be omitted for direct addressing?
[15:43]	<Mizcu> acht, yes, direct, not immediate
[15:43]	<jamesstan> OK, heh. :)
[15:44]	<Mizcu> so unspecified is processed as direct
[15:44]	<jamesstan> OK
[15:46]	<jamesstan> And if an operand is left out, it is taken as the B-Operand, and '$0' is the A-Operand...?
[15:46]	<jamesstan> ('it is taken as the B-Operand' should be, 'the given one is taken as the B-Operand')
[15:50]	<jamesstan> Oh no, standard says if there is only one operand for DAT, it is the B-Operand, and '#0' is the A-Operand. Is this likely to be true of all opcodes?
[15:51]	<Mizcu> what standard are you reading again?
[15:52]	<Mizcu> because dat.x >1, <1 is valid code in '94
[15:52]	<jamesstan> I am reading the Annotated Draft of the Proposed 1994 Corewar Standard Version 3.3
[15:54]	<Mizcu> it is only dat-specific behaviour
[15:54]	<jamesstan> OK
[15:54]	<Mizcu> so  dat 5  becomes  dat 0, 5, but jmp 5 becomes  jmp 5, 0
[15:56]	<jamesstan> OK
[15:56]	<jamesstan> And the jmp behaviour is that of everything except dat?
[15:57]	<Mizcu> well, gimme a second and ill test
[15:59]	<jamesstan> OK. Thanks :)
[15:59]	<Mizcu> following instructions compile with only one argument :  dat, jmp, seq, sne, spl, slt, ldp, stp
[15:59]	<jamesstan> Oh? The rest complain?
[15:59]	<Mizcu> instructions that require two arguments: mov add sub mul div mod jmz jmn djn
[16:00]	<jamesstan> Ah, OK
[16:00]	<Mizcu> no, it complains with slt, ldp and stp too
[16:00]	<jamesstan> But it carries on anyway?
[16:00]	<Mizcu> (too many errors, aborting -fault..)
[16:01]	<jamesstan> Ah
[16:01]	<Mizcu> pmars complains about incomplete operand or instruction, and refuses to run
[16:02]	<jamesstan> OK
[16:03]	<Mizcu> pmars divides problems into errors and warnings, refusing to run on an error
[16:03]	<jamesstan> Right. Same as gcc then.
[16:08]	<Mizcu> (i guess "missing 'assert', program may not run properly" is the most common warning among redcoders.. at least with me it is) 
[16:09]	<jamesstan> Alright