In a message dated 00-01-20 18:41:02 EST, you write: > getting rid of the '#' sign worked...also...am i too assume that this is > there is something wrong with doing: > > btst.b #0,old_x_status? > i see...what i was doing is testing bit 0 of the address (old_x_status) not the actual value of old_x_status.... is there no way i can do s'thing like: btst.b #0,#old_x_status?