Re: Processor specific optimisations

perle@cs.tu-berlin.de (Frank Wilde)
30 Jan 2002 20:40:50 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: Processor specific optimisations thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-01-24)
Re: Processor specific optimisations RLWatkins@CompuServe.Com (R. L. Watkins) (2002-01-24)
Re: Processor specific optimisations mpointie@eden-studios.fr (Mickaël Pointier) (2002-01-28)
Re: Processor specific optimisations rickh@capaccess.org (2002-01-28)
Re: Processor specific optimisations mpointie@eden-studios.fr (Mickaël Pointier) (2002-01-30)
Re: Processor specific optimisations Ulrich.Teichert@gmx.de (2002-01-30)
Re: Processor specific optimisations perle@cs.tu-berlin.de (2002-01-30)
Re: Processor specific optimisations mpointie@eden-studios.fr (Mickaël Pointier) (2002-02-06)
Re: Processor specific optimisations clc5q@cs.virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman) (2002-02-06)
Re: Processor specific optimisations rickh@capaccess.org (2002-02-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: perle@cs.tu-berlin.de (Frank Wilde)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Jan 2002 20:40:50 -0500
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
References: 02-01-077 02-01-126 02-01-151
Keywords: optimize
Posted-Date: 30 Jan 2002 20:40:50 EST

Rick Hohensee <rickh@capaccess.org> wrote:


> [...] Speaking of the 6502 and deliberately falling off the edge
> of the earth as a programming technique, has anyone ever used 6502
> "pre-indexed indirect" addressing? I didn't find any occurance of it
> in the C64 ROMs, 8k by Commodore and 8k by Microsoft.


That would be ($nn,X), right? I'd suspect management of the
connectedness of screen lines to logical lines (present in all CBM
machines with less than 80 cpl) of having used that mode; why else
would they reserve (about) 24 precious zero-page variables for just a
flag per byte?


Ciao,
Perle

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.