Hi, > Therefore, while it technically doesn't make much sense, it seems to be THE > way to go, unless we want to shave off couple of bits off the > implementation. I'd go for the typical, described above way, unless cutting > the ret value can really save non-negligible amount of mem on some systems. > And since you wrote that you didn't have issue with the -1 constant return, > there it is - I guess ;-) Exactly! Thanks for your summary - now I'm sure we're all on the same page :-) Regards, Oliver ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 25 20:51:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-01-25 20:51:04 CET