Hmm, this shouldn't have to be an issue though, should it? The compiler/linker will know that the function returns a char and not an int, and it shouldn't just use whatever is in A+X when promoting to int, but rather "know" that it should stick a zero in X first. ??? Seems broken if that is so? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cc65@musoftware.de [mailto:owner-cc65@musoftware.de] On Behalf > Of Oliver Schmidt > > As far as I know it isn't important as long as you i.e. directly > assign the return value to an 8-bit variable. If you however use the > return value in an expression then according to the type promotion > rules all values in the expression are promoted to an 16-bit value. > The compiler makes the presumtion that the promotion of function > return values is a nop - and this presumption breaks with assembler > functions returning arbitrary values in X... > > That's at least what I made up myself - we'll see how much of it is > left when Uz tells the truth ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Sat Feb 12 02:14:03 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-02-12 02:14:05 CET