On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Joel Park wrote:
> I've noticed people store images two ways.
>
> .byte %10000000
> .byte %11000000
> .byte %11100000
> .byte %11110000
> .byte %11111000
> .byte %11111100
> .byte %11111110
> .byte %11111111
>
> .byte $40 ; | X | $F7DD
> .byte $20 ; | X | $F7DE
> .byte $10 ; | X | $F7DF
> .byte $08 ; | X | $F7E0
> .byte $04 ; | X | $F7E1
> .byte $02 ; | X | $F7E2
> .byte $01 ; | X| $F7E3
>
>
> The top is definately easier to read. Will DASM allow me to save images in
> the two ways, or is one from a different compiler or something??
>
> Can anyone explain the differences and the advantages???
>
> Thanks,
> Joel D. Park
er, well, the 2 example you've given, don't store the same data... the top one
would be:
.byte %01000000
.byte %00100000
.byte %00010000
.byte %00001000
.byte %00000100
.byte %00000010
.byte %00000001
to make it match the bottom one.
DASM will let you use either format. the 2nd example you gave, the only thing
DASM pays attention to are the `.byte $40' `.byte $20' etc. The rest of each
line is just a comment (from the semicolon on).
I myself prefer the raw binary format (your first example). You'll see a lot
of the second (hex) format in disassemblies produced by Distella, since that's
how it displays graphics (or what it think are graphics, which is another
topic entirely).
You can use whichever format you find most usable...
B.
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
