Ouch, obviously not as Jonathan points out... :facepalm: On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 17:23, Rob van der Heij <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 16:35, Ed Jaffe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We use 'Jxx *+2' which disturbs no registers and is guaranteed to fail >> with an 0C1. >> >> I'm very fond of having an extra code for the type of assert, so I can > already blush before I see the listing ;-) > I suppose I could have the macro generate *+(code*2) and give me room for > 256 different codes and still falls over the X'00' opcode. > > Rob > >
