Update sketch to suggest use of `*ADDR`
This commit is contained in:
parent
4e01a0943c
commit
8f9f50e28c
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
|
|||
;; sketching around subroutines with return stack
|
||||
|
||||
; I think the sketching below contains some useful ideas,
|
||||
; but the new `*ADDR` assembly op should make this a whole lot simpler
|
||||
|
||||
; sketches follow ..........
|
||||
|
||||
; jump table
|
||||
; ----------
|
||||
; each function has a label
|
||||
|
|
@ -10,53 +15,59 @@
|
|||
; then when the subroutine ends, it jumps here
|
||||
; where that number gets mapped back onto the function's label
|
||||
|
||||
lda $1
|
||||
=*reentryPoint
|
||||
=routine1 $1
|
||||
|
||||
lda =routine1
|
||||
sto $19 ; contains ID # for the next fn to jump to
|
||||
|
||||
@jump_table
|
||||
hop $1
|
||||
jmp @jt2
|
||||
jmp @example_computation
|
||||
@jt2
|
||||
hop $2
|
||||
; jmp @jt3
|
||||
nop
|
||||
; etc …
|
||||
jmp @end
|
||||
hop $1
|
||||
jmp @jt2
|
||||
jmp @example_computation
|
||||
|
||||
@jt2
|
||||
hop $2
|
||||
; jmp @jt3
|
||||
nop
|
||||
; etc …
|
||||
|
||||
jmp @end
|
||||
|
||||
@example_computation
|
||||
lda 5
|
||||
sto $20
|
||||
lda 3
|
||||
sto $21
|
||||
; $19 still has the # for this routine
|
||||
; but let’s pretend it doesn’t and demonstrate updating it
|
||||
lda $1
|
||||
sto $19
|
||||
jmp @greater?
|
||||
lda 5
|
||||
sto $20
|
||||
lda 3
|
||||
sto $21
|
||||
; $19 still has the # for this routine
|
||||
; but let’s pretend it doesn’t and demonstrate updating it
|
||||
lda $1
|
||||
sto $19
|
||||
jmp @greater?
|
||||
|
||||
; call with numbers to test in $20 and $21
|
||||
; result is stored in acc
|
||||
@greater?
|
||||
; lda ($20)
|
||||
; sub ($21)
|
||||
; todo…
|
||||
; wouldn’t it be great to have a “hop if neg” op…
|
||||
; do we have to just subtract numbers until we get 0?
|
||||
; lda ($20)
|
||||
; sub ($21)
|
||||
; todo…
|
||||
; wouldn’t it be great to have a “hop if neg” op…
|
||||
; do we have to just subtract numbers until we get 0?
|
||||
|
||||
; no!
|
||||
; here’s an approach that’s at least better than that
|
||||
lda ($21)
|
||||
sto $22 ; stash
|
||||
@loop
|
||||
lda ($21)
|
||||
sub $1
|
||||
sto $22 ; stash
|
||||
sub ($20)
|
||||
hop $0
|
||||
jmp @loop
|
||||
sto $1
|
||||
jmp $jmp_table
|
||||
; ok this isn’t quite it… we also need to chexk if we hit 0 by just deceementinf and if so retuen 0
|
||||
; no!
|
||||
; here’s an approach that’s at least better than that
|
||||
lda ($21)
|
||||
sto $22 ; stash
|
||||
@loop
|
||||
lda ($21)
|
||||
sub $1
|
||||
sto $22 ; stash
|
||||
sub ($20)
|
||||
hop $0
|
||||
jmp @loop
|
||||
sto $1
|
||||
jmp $jmp_table
|
||||
; ok this isn’t quite it… we also need to chexk if we hit 0 by just deceementinf and if so retuen 0
|
||||
|
||||
jmp @jump_table
|
||||
@end
|
||||
END
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue