On 2008-09-27, at 13:35, Mark J. Reed wrote: > Sorry, but why are we talking about adding extra overhead here? I > thought cc65 was a C compiler, not an emulation layer. Why should the > C interface add features not present in the assembly interface? Might it be because it is a different programming language, with its own standard libraries? And the libraries (for any language) are the "emulation layers" adding features not present in the assembly interface? Take a simple printf() for example. If it wasn't an "emulation layer" with features (e.g. format string parsing and translating) not present in the assembly interface you would have to put things to stdout in a noticeably different manner. P. P. S. I don't have a strong opinion on how the device numbers would be better passed for execution. It seems to me that it would be nice and more elegant from a programmer's POV to have a common syntax for passing all the file addressing components in one shot and parse it out of a single string but (at least for me) it is not critical and I am not fully aware of all possible clashes between different, common but non-standard-CBM extensions to the file addressing syntax like CMD, IDE64, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Sun Sep 28 12:59:11 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2008-09-28 12:59:13 CEST