Hi, >> ofcourse. i am not saying that you shouldnt use kernal loading - thats >> ofcourse the preferred way to do things, especially when talking about >> tools/applications. BUT i would always recommend to use cbm_load over >> fopen/fread, > The above is of course valid as long as we stick to CBM targets. And yes, the original question was about CBM. I guess it's me who tend to always think "portable" whenever cc65/C code on 6502/6510 is being spoken about. Maybe because for a 64 I feel as good (if not better :-) with pure assembler.. Thus - yes, as long as we speak of CBM only it's all correct. The other scenario beside cross-65xx development is that cc65 allows someone like me to do C64 development although I don't know cbm_load - and basically don't want to learn about it. I'd call the C library even from assembly language - and by the way still stay cross-target... When looking at the read() implementation for CBM I'm sort of having a hard time to believe that it causes (too) much overhead. Is cbm_load() really supposed to be noticably faster? I always thought the time is spent on the serial transfer, not in the C library. And when it comes to fastloading the open(), read() and friends functions could even offer an opportunity in that a fastloader wouldn't need to "emulate" closely the potentially very specific behaviour of "some" low-level Kernal call but would "just" offer what open/read/.etc need/want. Meaning that cbm_load() works the way it always does and only read() is accelerated. Please understand that I don't actually know if it makes sense what I say, I'm just talking about potential design aspects. 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 Mon Dec 12 11:33:00 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2011-12-12 11:33:04 CET