LoL! Is really that important to you out(c),0? For what do you plan to use it to?
Its only one fastest method to write 0 in the port on MSX.
Even Grauw mention it in his tips and tricks. 
What, I do, where? No, surely not. I don’t like it because on MSX it breaks R800 compatibility for very negligible gain in very specific edge cases. On other platforms where they only used the Z80 (like CPC, Spectrum, etc.) the consideration may be different, but I don’t write tips & tricks for those 
.
What, I do, where? No, surely not. I don’t like it because on MSX it breaks R800 compatibility for very negligible gain in very specific edge cases. On other platforms where they only used the Z80 (like CPC, Spectrum, etc.) the consideration may be different, but I don’t write tips & tricks for those .
Realy?!
http://map.grauw.nl/articles/split_guide.php - not your site? ))
Context was about IN F,(C)
It same point with different direction ;)
But ok, I do not wanna discuss about it.
I just needed this and other commands.
Therefore I select another asm.
Also at this moment I need a more optimizing Asm, and even more - an optimizing C. SDCC generates just ugly code for the z80.
Contrary to popular belief in f,(c) is officially documented by Zilog actually, see their manual p. 270, and also works on R800. The turboR GT is my primary MSX that I use nowadays, so I would never recommend anything that wouldn’t work on it .
About optimising assembler, I think it is a very interesting topic that I also mentioned when I first announced Glass, but it is not something I can tackle yet. I nowadays also wonder whether this is really the role of an assembler, which is about giving full control to the programmer as opposed to a higher level language like C. But the general concept of applying transforms on code to aid the programmer is something that I like, and optimisation is one application of that.
Contrary to popular belief in f,(c) is officially documented by Zilog actually, see their manual p. 270, and also works on R800. The turboR GT is my primary MSX that I use nowadays, so I would never recommend anything that wouldn’t work on it .
About optimising assembler, I think it is a very interesting topic that I also mentioned when I first announced Glass, but it is not something I can tackle yet. I nowadays also wonder whether this is really the role of an assembler, which is about giving full control to the programmer as opposed to a higher level language like C. But the general concept of applying transforms on code to aid the programmer is something that I like, and optimisation is one application of that.
I don't think that automatic optimization in assembly is desirable, as you might need to spend extra cycles and use non efficient instructions on purpose to "waste" time... If such feature is implemented, I just think that it would be better as a command line option to turn it on. I'm just wondering on how much programmer time could be wasted trying to understand why the heck a given function did not work and vdp output is corrupt, looking at the code, counting cycles, everything seems correct.... :-?
For sure it should be optional ducasp. Perhaps a special block statement. Indeed transparency of the code suffers, for the potential benefit to be able to write more readable code. However very quickly that line of thought goes into higher level language territory (at least it does for me 
).
Contrary to C where you have to trust the compiler to a degree to apply the optimisations, I feel it would suit the nature of assembly better if such optimisations were more visible and more explicit. One example that comes to mind is a “jump” pseudo-instruction which picks jr or jp based on distance.
Another perspective; places where optimisations matter you probably want to hand-optimise anyway. Whereas places where it doesn’t, probably you care more about how readable the code is rather than how it performs. So I think aiding those hand-optimisations by allowing you to do them while keeping the code readable, that would be the an interesting angle to take.
I don't think that automatic optimization in assembly is desirable, as you might need to spend extra cycles and use non efficient instructions on purpose to "waste" time... If such feature is implemented, I just think that it would be better as a command line option to turn it on. I'm just wondering on how much programmer time could be wasted trying to understand why the heck a given function did not work and vdp output is corrupt, looking at the code, counting cycles, everything seems correct.... 
Ofc! Evenmore, when it Asm is exhaust after C or Pascal.
Its not C compiller problem, when in Asm listing u got something like:
...
and a, 7Fh
and a, 03h
...
Or even:
...
ld c, (#_Data+0)
ld b, (#_Data+1)
ld l, c
ld h, b
ld (#NewData+0), l
ld (#NewData+1), h
...
Exactly! But BC (and HL too!) not used after it))
I might show screen shots such examples so many.
Its all not so terrible as another moments with IY and stack using.
Oftern I see this fckn trick:
...
jr NZ, EndFunc
jr Next
jr EndFunc
Next:
...
This is just a holiday!
Btw this:
and a, 7Fh
and a, 03h
Is on every operations like:
(data>>1)&3
Or similar.
