Lines 18 & 19 of your source code use the equ statement to assign register locations to the labels, count 1&2. Lines 20 & 21 use the same equ statement but seem to create a literal constant reference of 0xff. What is different about lines 20 & 21 that causes the assembler to treat the equ statement differently?
@@ExcelinusCom Thank you very much. The funny thing is, I have been using the equ statement in a similar way to this for many years. An example would be a bit designation such as the rp0 in status,rp0. It was only when I saw your usage that I questioned my understanding. My assumption that the equ statement assigned a label to a general purpose register has been a long held misunderstanding. I now see that in the past I have sometimes wasted GP registers by loading them with a value that is intended to be constant. It's hard for me to believe that I have missed this fundamental understanding for so many years. Thanks again.
Lines 18 & 19 of your source code use the equ statement to assign register locations to the labels, count 1&2. Lines 20 & 21 use the same equ statement but seem to create a literal constant reference of 0xff. What is different about lines 20 & 21 that causes the assembler to treat the equ statement differently?
@@ExcelinusCom Thank you very much. The funny thing is, I have been using the equ statement in a similar way to this for many years. An example would be a bit designation such as the rp0 in status,rp0. It was only when I saw your usage that I questioned my understanding. My assumption that the equ statement assigned a label to a general purpose register has been a long held misunderstanding. I now see that in the past I have sometimes wasted GP registers by loading them with a value that is intended to be constant. It's hard for me to believe that I have missed this fundamental understanding for so many years. Thanks again.