Hi Brian!
> Tell you what it's good for: I've used it for messing with timing, with a
> series of NOPs...
> repeat 5
> nop
> repend
> then vary the number in the repeat, until you get it right. Now that you know
> the number of NOPs needed, you can go back & replace it with some other code
> that takes the same number of cycles... although as I learn more about the
> hardware & timings, I find myself getting it right the first time more often.
Wouldn't something like 'SLEEPCYCLES' X be more usefull, with X being a
number in single cycle precission ranging from 2-n?
DASM could automatically insert the best fitting mixture of 2 and 3
cycle NOPs.
Yet - I still think it's a dangerous feature. Some 5 NOPs in a row are
way easier to recognise in optimization runs or a 'cycle hunt' :-)
> Anyway I don't think we should be removing features... for all I know,
> you can't live without repeat/repend on the 68HC11 or something :)
Agreed. I was more or less kidding anyway. Even if for no other reason
than backwards compatibility it should of course stay in. Good luck to
the ones using it, you'll need it :-)
Greetings,
Manuel
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
