Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
08/10/04 22:06
Read: times


 		 #75711 - RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Marty,

The code doesn't implement a "jump table" where the match assumes the 2 byte length of ACALL vs the 3 byte length of LCALL call does it?

regards,
p


List of 20 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. ACALL            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. ACALL            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. ACALL            01/01/70 00:00      
      eval            01/01/70 00:00      
   RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC            01/01/70 00:00      
            RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: ASM works not C PART 2: LCALL vs. AC            01/01/70 00:00      
   \            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: \            01/01/70 00:00      
         RE: \            01/01/70 00:00      
            Reply to off-topic comments...            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Reply to off-topic comments...            01/01/70 00:00      
               RE: Reply to off-topic comments...            01/01/70 00:00      
               Hardware bug?            01/01/70 00:00      
   Testing C program results...            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Testing C program results...            01/01/70 00:00      
      RE: Testing C program results...            01/01/70 00:00      
         The Next Step...            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List