On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Martin Truebner <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do NOT like this "inline"-technique at all. Also: it does make coding > baseless (only base(s) for data) hard, if EXRL is not available. Yes, I > heard (and do use) of LOCTR and various other techniques to do it > anyway. I thought that putting instructions between the data was considered evil practice. But I merely assumed it applied to the target of EX as well. When reading the code, I find it breaks the line of thought when I have to go look for the exact instruction that's targeted by EX. And I have been bitten a few times because USINGs were different at the EX and where the target was placed. This is what I see as abstraction. The details you mention are done inside the macro and don't affect my source code. My macro even knows about the instructions that are safe to execute twice as we discussed. If I would go baseless, that would be resolved entirely in my INLINEX macro (the branch as well as putting the target instruction in the constants area with the right LOCTR settings). And with *no* branches coded in my source, the macros is all it takes to go baseless... Rob
