Author: William Penn
Date: 17:23:21 02/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2005 at 11:41:02, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On February 25, 2005 at 10:30:58, William Penn wrote: > >[snip] >>Thanks to all for your suggestions. It looks like "C" is most often suggested as >>a higher-level language, with later translation into Assembly for subroutines >>that need to be as fast as possible. That's analogous to what I used to do with >>Basic and Assembly on my old C64. >>WP > >How did you do it? Stepwise. Break it up into small coding jobs, give each a label (as needed), and then manually write down a series of Assembly operations corresponding to the Basic code. It got easier as you go. After some of the common Basic operations had been written as successful tested subroutines, then simply plug in the variables and call the subroutine whenever needed in future. If I recall correctly, a machine code subroutine could be called from Basic with the SYS operation. I probably stuck the machine code subroutine at a specific memory location and used an absolute address to call it with SYS. I generally didn't worry about portability because almost everything was for one machine, my C64! > I recall back in the C64 days the built in Basic had no >mechanism to include assembly routines. So I'd generate the assembly with MASM >and put it in a string. Basic had a function to get the address of the string >and a Call function (vs the standard Gosub) which you could use to call the >assembly routine. > >Ahh, the good old days. > >Dan H.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.