Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A For-Next bug in 1.2.8-s682
You know it occurs to me that it might spot cases where it could keep it on register. Simple loops that don't do much, and live below 256 for B or 65536 for BC..

Remember that code I showed you that made djnz-like speed from a 16 bit counter?

Perhaps implementing a push-pop to bc if it calls something that would need that register. But quite a lot of for-next loops are to a static number, or in the next best case from something like 1 to uInteger. Both of which could be stored in registers, assuming that doesn't get too complicated.

And of course, it would be blinding fast Smile

Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)