Closed peterferrie closed 10 years ago
The BCS should actually be a BCC. The reason is, although the routines say they work with DCI strings, in actuality they are inverse DCI. Whoever implemented the symbol table code in EDASM inverted the high bit from the DCI strings the rest of the assembler used. Go figure (and it took my awhile to figure out why I couldn't load EDASM generated REL files). So instead of renaming the routines, they just work the opposite of what one would think.
The BCS should actually be a BCC.
Yes, despite the clear comment and the high-level description, I still failed to notice my mistake. :-/
I went and changed the code slighty to what I think you intended (more consistent with your other code) and put the BCS back in.
On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:47 AM, peterferrie notifications@github.com wrote:
The BCS should actually be a BCC.
Yes, despite the clear comment and the high-level description, I still failed to notice my mistake. :-/ — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
I went and changed the code slighty to what I think you intended (more consistent with your other code) and put the BCS back in.
Yes, you did what I intended, and now it's even faster than my version, so that's really great.
Thanks Peter! Great stuff.
Dave...