> > On Thursday 06 April 2006 09:29, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 12:43:06AM +0200, Groepaz wrote: > > > uhm the so called "illegal opcodes" (i prefer to call them undocumented > > > :)). the codegenerator (or internal optimizer) might be able to make use > > > of "LAX" for example. > > > > I don't think that this saves a noticeable amount of code. Even using 65C02 > > opcodes gives almost no code size and/or speed improvements (~1%). > > yes ofcourse, but every small bit counts imho.... 1% in some innerloop can be > a LOT :=) > Well, to be honest if you look at the replacement rules in OPTIML, alot of them only save 1 byte each. This adds up over a large project. Yours, -- Andrew J. Kroll Software and Hardware Engineer and Consultant Grafixoft http://dr.ea.ms/HW/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Thu Apr 6 09:42:23 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-04-06 09:42:26 CEST