27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
1:06 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner once stated:
ld b,h ; 1 4
ld c,l ; 1 4
srl b ; 2 8
rr c ; 2 8
srl b ; 2 8
rr c ; 2 8
add hl,bc ; HL = q ; 1 11
ld b,h ; BC also = q ; 1 4
ld c,l ; 1 4
ex de,hl ; HL = n, DE = q; 1 4
or a ; CF = 0 ; 1 4
sbc hl,de ; n - q ; 2 15
; return q + ((r + 6) >> 4
ld de,(const6) ; 4 20
add hl,de ; 1 11
ld (savehl),hl ; 3 16
ld hl,savehl ; 3 10
and a ; 1 4
rdd ; 1 18
ld hl,(savehl) ; 3 16
add hl,bc ; 1 11
ret ; 1 10
I find it amazing that there's an instruction set even more annoying than
the 8086 (segments and all). I was amazed at the lopsidedness of the
instruction set. I'm beginning to think I was lucky in skipping this
particular chip (my first 8-bit was the 6809, so I think I got spoiled).
There doesn't even seem to be an easy way to get the stack pointer, and the
only way I can see of doing it is:
or a
sbc hl,hl
add hl,sp
and no real good way of indexing the stack.
Sheesh.
-spc (What an ... interesting chip ... )