Hi Andreas, >> The only good reason I could imagine for the inline assembler would be >> to really mix C and asm inside a single function to avoid any >> subroutine overhead. > That's exactly the case... That what I guessed :-) > I checked the generated assembler code, and I could not find any > inline assembler, that was optimized away so far, so maybe I'm just > lucky at the moment... Hm, I actually had them disappear! That was one of the reason Uz introduced the pragma to turn off the optimizer so I didn't need to reorg the source files into function with and without inline assembler. I'd certainly stay clear from that route! I don't know enough about your problem domain but should really find a way to structure your code in a way that the JSR/RTS's don't kill you - and go for ca65. Again just my two cents, 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 Thu Jan 19 17:45:04 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-01-19 17:45:07 CET