jgraham@pro-generic.UUCP (Jonathan Graham) (01/22/89)
When refering to the 65C02 instruction that will increment the accumulator (identified by HEX $1A) it is NOT called "INC A" or "INC" rather "INA" as per the standards described by NCR in their tech note on thee 65C02. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARPA: pro-generic.nosc.mil!jgraham | INet: crash!pro-generic!jgraham | UUCP: crash!pro-generic!jgraham | -|- Proline: jgraham@pro-generic | Jonathan A. Graham | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prw@meccts.MECC.MN.ORG (Paul Wenker) (02/08/89)
In article <8902070736.AA08803@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!pro-ascii!pro-gemini!pro-generic!jgraham@nosc.mil writes: >When refering to the 65C02 instruction that will increment the accumulator >(identified by HEX $1A) it is NOT called "INC A" or "INC" rather "INA" as per >the standards described by NCR in their tech note on thee 65C02. Does it really matter what someone calls the instruction as long as we know what they mean? Besides, the Western Digital spec sheet for the 65816 lists the instruction as "INC A" with the alternate mnemonic of "INA". -Paul Wenker UUCP: prw@meccts.MECC.MN.ORG -MECC, Advanced Development AppleLink: MECC.TECH
blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak) (02/10/89)
"INA" may be the official way to code the instruction, but "INC" or "INC A" are the De Facto standards in the Apple // world... I personally think that "INC" makes more sense (with the "A" optional depending on how the assembler handles the accumulator addressing mode. Jason Blochowiak (blochowi@wherever_i_am - garfield.cs.wisc.edu?) "Not your average iconoclast..." Dave Whitney: Where are you? Write to me; either here or @lakesys will do.
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (02/14/89)
blochowi@cat28.CS.WISC.EDU (Jason Blochowiak) writes: > "INA" may be the official way to code the instruction, but "INC" or >"INC A" are the De Facto standards in the Apple // world... I personally >think that "INC" makes more sense (with the "A" optional depending on how the >assembler handles the accumulator addressing mode. However, my personal opinion is that "INA" makes more sense, since it's so much like "INX" or "INY". (But then, it really is my personal opinion, isn't it? And I use "INC A" out of habit, since some assemblers I used to work with didn't support "INA".) UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com