Talk:6502 assembly optimisations: Difference between revisions
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→ixmkdx wspb eo: new section) |
m (Reverted edits by 199.15.233.162 (talk) to last revision by Tepples) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:With respect to "compile" vs. "assemble" pedantry: The distinction between assembling and compiling becomes blurred when macros (in assembly language) or blocks of inline assembly language (in a language that is not primarily assembly language) come into play. Besides, we use "compile" because among words meaning "translate source code into object code", I assume it will be understood by the largest number of readers. What better word encompasses both "compile" and "assemble" and means "perform a translation of source code, in either assembly language or a language that is not assembly language, into object code"? | :With respect to "compile" vs. "assemble" pedantry: The distinction between assembling and compiling becomes blurred when macros (in assembly language) or blocks of inline assembly language (in a language that is not primarily assembly language) come into play. Besides, we use "compile" because among words meaning "translate source code into object code", I assume it will be understood by the largest number of readers. What better word encompasses both "compile" and "assemble" and means "perform a translation of source code, in either assembly language or a language that is not assembly language, into object code"? | ||
:With respect to syntax: What assembler distributed under a [[wikipedia:free software license|free software license]] should we cite as an example of an assembler that accepts official MOS Technology syntax and pseudo-ops? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (MDT) | :With respect to syntax: What assembler distributed under a [[wikipedia:free software license|free software license]] should we cite as an example of an assembler that accepts official MOS Technology syntax and pseudo-ops? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:50, 3 June 2016
Examples
- Split word tables in high and low components
- This optimisation is not human friendly, makes the source code much bigger, but still makes the compiled size smaller and faster:
One doesn't compile assembly language programs. They are assembled. Please use correct terminology so those of us who know the difference between assembling and compiling programs don't dismiss this article as the work of a dilettante.
PointerTable .dw Pointer1, Pointer2, ....
The .dw pseudo-op is non-standard syntax that should not be used in code examples. Best if examples stick to official MOS Technology syntax and pseudo-ops, such as:
pointertable .byte pointer1, pointer2, ... (unsigned post by 38.69.12.5)
- With respect to "compile" vs. "assemble" pedantry: The distinction between assembling and compiling becomes blurred when macros (in assembly language) or blocks of inline assembly language (in a language that is not primarily assembly language) come into play. Besides, we use "compile" because among words meaning "translate source code into object code", I assume it will be understood by the largest number of readers. What better word encompasses both "compile" and "assemble" and means "perform a translation of source code, in either assembly language or a language that is not assembly language, into object code"?
- With respect to syntax: What assembler distributed under a free software license should we cite as an example of an assembler that accepts official MOS Technology syntax and pseudo-ops? --Tepples (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (MDT)
