search for: edwinguy

...imum dynamic depth of a stack implementation, but I think usually not a lot. And it lets you use absolute addressing instead of slow (zp),y, and also let you avoid saving and restoring simulated callee-save registers. > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Edwin Amsler <edwinguy at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hey there! >> >> I've started to embark on a path to try and create a backend for a 39 year old CPU with only an accumulator, two index registers, and a 256 byte stack. It does have a bank of 256 bytes before the stack that are pretty quick though....

I suppose that once you've got a 6502 working, adding support for a 4510 shouldn't be too difficult.... (http://c65gs.blogspot.com.au/) On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Edwin Amsler <edwinguy at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, the stack pointer be a single byte, so pushing things on there >> doesn't work terribly well. >> >> Assuming I pass by reference, that's 128 values absolutely total before >> it wraps around and silently clobbers itself. It...

I've mentioned my sneaky plans to target the MOS6502 here before. The big issue I think is that a lot of instructions don't really have a choice for output register. It all just goes into the accumulator, X index, or Y index based on the specific instruction. So, my question is, when I'm defining my ins, outs and registers for these instructions, is it going to be a problem that

Hey there! I've started to embark on a path to try and create a backend for a 39 year old CPU with only an accumulator, two index registers, and a 256 byte stack. It does have a bank of 256 bytes before the stack that are pretty quick though. Really, if I can get an assembler out of `llc`, that'll be success enough for me. Clang would be better, but I think that might be crazy talk.