Subject: Re: [stella] ASM comparison question From: "Dennis Debro" <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:46:54 -0400 |
Hi there, > It might be better to > generate a number between 0 and 140, then add 9 to the result. (Plus, > this way you don't have to check if the number is higher than a low > limit!) Good point. It saves bytes too. jsr RandomByte cmp #140 bcc .shiftValue sbc #140 .shiftValue clc ; not guarenteed to be cleared adc #9 or if the PRNG doesn't take too long .nextNumber jsr RandomByte cmp #140+1 bcs .nextNumber adc #9 ; clc always cleared :-) > Second, after the sbc #149 statement, you have a bcs to .checkLowerRange. > However, the very first statement in .checkLowerRange is a bcs > to .checkUpperRange. Was this intentional? Oops, that was to go up to compare the min value of 9 again. Take care, Dennis Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/ Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [stella] ASM comparison questio, eeid | Thread | [stella] Crazy Balloon Update, Manuel Rotschkar |
Re: [stella] ASM comparison questio, eeid | Date | Re: [stella] ASM comparison questio, B. Watson |
Month |