Re: LZ: USGARD Question
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LZ: USGARD Question
When it came to Re: LZ: USGARD Question, Keith Burzinski thought:
> > Maybe I just missed
> > something. I know it has relocation and libraries but in praticle
> > use libraries don't save space as far as I have seen and they sure
> > aren't fast and relocation might save maybe .1 in a program I
> > write but that doesn't make up for the shell size and the little
> > speed increase is not really that important.
> I agree. By eliminating the "ld de, (PROGRAM_ADDR)" and "add hl,de"
> you're only saving 21 clock cycles, probably translating to only a
> few micro-seconds... (Remember this processor does SEVERAL MILLION
> cycles a second...)
Actually, think about all the code a CALL_() goes through. It's got
to be at least a hundred or two clock cycles. Now say you were
repetitively calling something from within the inner loop of your
game. If that was supposed to be a fast, optimized loop, well, it
isn't anymore... But with relocation, you can just use a regular call
instruction that uses, what, 17 cycles? Sounds like quite an
improvement if you ask me. Note I'm arguing for relocation here, not
for any specific OS... Just thought I would make that clear for
safety's sake. :)
> > What I would like to see is a shell that the
> > BARE minimum, like not scrolling menus or anything, just either a
> > text variable list or just have all the programs in the custom
> > menu so you could run them there.
> Well, that's been discussed before, and it would be almost
> impossible... :(
Well, if, in Usgard, you use CustCust to put your programs on the
custom menu, you could just delete your shell and then just run
things from the custom menu...
Just my $0.019584372 cents...
Ben Shakal
shakalb98@jhs.net
shakal@ns.net
Quote of the Month: "Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular."
Follow-Ups: