| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We cannot safely detect all scenarios in which there is dead code, but
we can safely do it for .proc's. Even if they are not called directly,
they might be referenced via jump tables and shenanigans like that. Long
story short, if you are not referencing a .proc in any meaningful way,
then we have dead code.
A pattern could also be given in which a function that was too long has
been splitted into smaller functions which are not called
directly. This is, in my opinion, an anti-pattern (as we generally
expect an rts or a jmp from .proc's), and anyways can be avoided via the
use of __fallthrough__ if the programmer is really set to write this
kind of code.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@mssola.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fixes 4f1a9c660108 ("Add the .fallthrough control statement")
Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@mssola.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This statement allows programmers to reserve a memory range for the
stack. This is useful to reserve a memory region which is not attached
to any variable, and:
1. It is a way to safely reserve space on the $0100 page.
2. The --stats/--write-info flags will be able to add up the memory
space reserved for the stack.
3. Future tooling might be able to use this value as a way to detect
stack overflows.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@mssola.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Implementing it as a control statement has the bad thing that it's
impossible to be compatible with other assemblers such as ca65, as you
cannot create dummy control statements or something like that in
there. Instead of that, we define it with the special underscores which
are still valid for identifiers, and give a "compiler-specific thingie"
flair to it.
This also has the benefit that the parser can be a bit more strict.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@mssola.com>
|
|
|
This is exclusive to 'nasm' and it allows the developer to explicitly
tell the assembler than a "fall through" condition is actually desired:
it's not a mistake.
This comes in two flavors. The first, without arguments, just makes this
explicit without much enforcement. The second allows you to pass an
argument which is the name of the function or label you are expecting to
fall through. The assembler will error out if the fall through address
is not the expected one, hence telling the programmer whenever the fall
through condition they thought in the past is no longer true (e.g. the
function has moved somewhere else in the code).
Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mssola@mssola.com>
|
