On Dienstag 07 Dezember 2010, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:12:19PM -0600, Dave Dribin wrote: > > Keep in mind I don't know anything about the optimizer, would it be > > easier to optimize out a dummy variable? i.e. is it difficult for the > > optimizer to realize in this code that the pusha/incsp1 is > > unnecessary? > > In this special case it may be easy to detect. In the more general case, > cc65 optimizations work on a too low level to detect such things easily. > > > But.... I think I have found a good work around. Using inline > > assembly + the 'bit' instruction seems to work. > > It is a workaround, but not a good one. It works, because bit sets CPU > flags that the optimizer doesn't track, so it won't touch the instruction. > This may change in the future, so your code may stop working when compiled > with upcoming releases. what about using an external symbol, the optimizer wont touch it then, right? ie define HWREG=$2000 in the linker config, then import that symbol and use it in the code ? shouldnt this work? :) -- http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org Trying to outsmart a compiler defeats much of the purpose of using one. <Kernighan & Plauger> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Tue Dec 7 15:34:42 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-12-07 15:34:45 CET