Forum unknown
· Software Developers
My absence
9 messages in this thread
hehe. This is a common mistake – register indirect addressing is _faster_ than
absolute addressing, on every command bar none. I even had to point this out
to a "seasoned veteran" of the 68000 once. This is a common mistake because
it's this way on most processors – the 68000 is the exception to the rule.
All Mac compilers (to the best of my knowledge) _only_ allow you to create
relocatable code – indeed, this is the only type of code which will work on the
Mac because of the way its heap management works. "CODE" resources are no
different from any other data type – they are loaded into the heap wherever
there's room, and global references into the block are resolved.
OK. You win. People on here seem to be complaining about the Lattice C
speed…..wunner why?
-Larry-
OK. You win. People on here seem to be complaining about the Lattice C
speed…..wunner why?
-Larry-
The more you look at the 68000, the more you realize that it was designed with
a great deal of foresight. It's future was solidified by the accomodations made
for HLL's. It's also much more intuitive to use in assembly languae (I can
NEVER get used to Intel's MOV dest,source…I either misspell MOV as MOVE or
confuse the operands).
* Replies:
2066, 2115
hehe – I started my serious assembly language programming on a Z-80. When I
moved next to the 6502, I had to "unlearn" the backwards format for statements
(at least Zilog had the heart to change the MOV command to LD, which made more
sense given the context.) Every now and again, I have to work in 8080 or Z-80,
and it's "unlearn" all over again.
I worship the ground Motorola is built on. I agree, the 68000 series is a work
of art.
[ Russ ]
hehe – I started my serious assembly language programming on a Z-80. When I
moved next to the 6502, I had to "unlearn" the backwards format for statements
(at least Zilog had the heart to change the MOV command to LD, which made more
sense given the context.) Every now and again, I have to work in 8080 or Z-80,
and it's "unlearn" all over again.
I worship the ground Motorola is built on. I agree, the 68000 series is a work
of art.
[ Russ ]
Hi Bob,
I always wondered if SOMEONE out there preferred the 68k's argument
arrangement. I find that the Intel method reminds me of most high-level
language's assignment statements (e.g. AL := 5;) While Motorola's reminds me
of COBOL (which produces subliminal feelings of dislike). Ah well, I should be
able to adapt, but It sure seems strange after growing up on Z80, 6502 & 8086
to change arg order now. I work with 8086 at work & 68k at home, which doesn't
help…
–Wayne
Hi Bob,
I always wondered if SOMEONE out there preferred the 68k's argument
arrangement. I find that the Intel method reminds me of most high-level
language's assignment statements (e.g. AL := 5;) While Motorola's reminds me
of COBOL (which produces subliminal feelings of dislike). Ah well, I should be
able to adapt, but It sure seems strange after growing up on Z80, 6502 & 8086
to change arg order now. I work with 8086 at work & 68k at home, which doesn't
help…
–Wayne
The more you look at the 68000, the more you realize that it was designed with
a great deal of foresight. It's future was solidified by the accomodations made
for HLL's. It's also much more intuitive to use in assembly languae (I can
NEVER get used to Intel's MOV dest,source…I either misspell MOV as MOVE or
confuse the operands).
* Replies:
2066, 2115