Instead of writing a traditional 6502/8501/Z80/etc. backend for general-purpose IRs like LLVM, I wonder whether these platforms are constrained enough that a superoptimizer could generate more optimal code in reasonable time
-
-
Replying to @jckarter
Completely unrelated, but I've been reading a lot of Z80 assembly lately, having never seen it before... WHY DOES NOBODY CALL OUT THAT `c` MEANS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And why does every ASM syntax feel the need to have such arcane incantations for every instruction name and register name? It's not like the names used by an assembler affect the size of the actual instruction
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Back when I was programming assembly just getting the assembly _source_ to fit in the ~32K we could use was often a challenge. Nowadays: no excuse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wilshipley @jckarter
Did assemblers back then not support including multiple files?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think you could with some. ORCA/M probably did? It was a beast.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wilshipley @jckarter
Where did the 32K source limit come from then?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sorry I was being too specific. The general point was back when you had so little memory and no paging so the editor and assembler had to fit into memory WITH the source you were editing, it really paid off to have small source files.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.