From: Christian Kruger (christian.krueger_at_pace.de)
Date: 2003-02-26 10:33:42
Hi, > I'll have to do some more testing, but since you stated that > no one has tested the 65C02 code generation... it may be that > something is not generating properly. I have saved three > assembly listings from my programs compiled in different ways > (one with -O, one with --cpu 65C02 and one without, but > haven't looked at them yet.) Most likely this stems from > errors on my part, but I'll let youu know if it's not. as I'm working on the Lynx target too, I can say, that I haven't encountered any of such code generation problems. cc65 and ca65 just works fine with my startup, memory layout & runtime lib (independent of 6502 or 65C02 code generation). But to close with a wish, Uz, I would still appreciate if you could point out (doc) that (at the moment) the 65C02 mode is fully 65SC02 compatible or introduce this mode too. As the Lynx is a 65SC02 target, the 65C02 mode got a little bit the taste of unsafetyness for me... ;-> > >> and I have a #define SUZY (*(struct __suzy *) 0xFC00) in > my lynx.h file. How > >> do I use this structure? If I do var = SUZY.joystick in > my code the compiler > >> complains bitterly. I'm not sure if this is the fastest way of accessing the joystick-'register' of suzy. Maybe the code generated by a struct access at a fixed address is no so efficient like the direct access of the absolute address... Regards chrisker ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-02-26 10:34:08 CET