Talk:RTS Trick: Difference between revisions

From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with 'is there an advantage over using JMP ($0200), where $0200 has been loaded from the same kind of jump-table? that's what I wonder, but I'm not gonna count up the cpu cycles neede...')
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
is there an advantage over using JMP ($0200), where $0200 has been loaded from the same kind of jump-table?  that's what I wonder, but I'm not gonna count up the cpu cycles needed for either method right now.
is there an advantage over using JMP ($0200), where $0200 has been loaded from the same kind of jump-table?  that's what I wonder, but I'm not gonna count up the cpu cycles needed for either method right now.
[[User:MetalSlime|MetalSlime]]:  Not sure.  Seems like a pick'em to me.  Here are some things that come to mind:
* RTS Trick doesn't require any RAM.
* I personally think the RTS Trick is more readable.  If I see a table of pointers in my (or somebody else's) code and they all have a "-1" after them, I immediately know their purpose and how they are used.
* PHA, PHA, RTS requires less bytes than STA, STA, JMP (3 vs. 9).

Revision as of 07:08, 26 June 2009

is there an advantage over using JMP ($0200), where $0200 has been loaded from the same kind of jump-table? that's what I wonder, but I'm not gonna count up the cpu cycles needed for either method right now.


MetalSlime: Not sure. Seems like a pick'em to me. Here are some things that come to mind:

  • RTS Trick doesn't require any RAM.
  • I personally think the RTS Trick is more readable. If I see a table of pointers in my (or somebody else's) code and they all have a "-1" after them, I immediately know their purpose and how they are used.
  • PHA, PHA, RTS requires less bytes than STA, STA, JMP (3 vs. 9).