On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:01 PM Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/17/25 07:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > I don't really see how this is that useful. That said, f a bug fix or > > feature used encls mnemonic, I'd had no problems with acking it. > > It's not _that_ useful. > > But old assemblers that we still want to use *NEVER* have support for > newfanlged instructions, so we always add new instructions with ".byte". > Then, a few years down the road when we've moved to just old assemblers > instead of super old assemblers, we move to the real instruction names.
That, and the code becomes self-documenting. You don't have to scratch your head what the .byte stream represents when reading assembly. Uros.
