On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, RussellMc wrote: > > Yes but it's not only the fact that you've removed the comment that is > > important - you've also attached meaning to that fraction of code (not > > only for yourself or another person BUT ALSO FOR THE COMPILER). > ... > > All good stuff. > But a reasonable amount of that can be achieved by use of more > meaningful names in assembler. > There's no rule against meaningful names AND comments as well :-). I'm NOT saying not to use these. What I am saying is that comments don't help the compiler or assembler or any other development tool that I know of. Moving the information from the comment to a more "tool" readable / actionable representation ultimately helps the developer. > > Gains can also be had from multiple naming (Danger! Will Robinson) > variables. The latter either in parallel or series. > A <--B, A <--C versus A <-- B <-- C. In part this depends on > whether your tool allows this. lol, actually XCASM lets you do stuff like that, it helps compiler writing :-) e.g. a0 .ds 1 a1 .ds 1 b .alias .word a0 .let b = b+1 ; emit executable code that ; increments a0:a1 as a 16 bit word Regards Sergio Masci -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist