The Optimization Compilation

[Fast Crash]

Very Nice tricks ! Congratulations !

[calc84maniac]

By the way, you can't have non-constant data as part of the Data() command.  And that whole inData() optimization only works for comparisons with numbers between 0-255.  You can optimize it to this always though:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1	!If A-EXP1 [16bit and] (A-EXP2)

Wait, but you can't use bitwise-and like a logical "and" the same way you can with "or".

[kindermoumoute]

Wooooaa ! I need translate this in my french tutorial, can I ? 

[squidgetx]

By the way, you can't have non-constant data as part of the Data() command.  And that whole inData() optimization only works for comparisons with numbers between 0-255.  You can optimize it to this always though:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1	!If A-EXP1 [16bit and] (A-EXP2)

Wait, but you can't use bitwise-and like a logical "and" the same way you can with "or".

Actually, yeah, i think calc84's right (I tried it today and it didn't work).

And kinder, go ahead

[Quigibo]

Oh you're right.  But I just realized that your other optimization doesn't work either. You cannot do this for AND:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1	!If A-EXP1 + (B-EXP2)

This doesn't work because there are more solutions than there should be.  For instance, if A were EXP2 and B were EXP1 the expression would be zero when it should be non-zero.

But you can do this for a compound OR:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1	If A=EXP1 + (B=EXP2)

And you can do this for a compound AND:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1	!If A-EXP1 [16-bit or] (B-EXP2)

And speaking of optimizations.  One major optimization that usually gets ignored is recycling large axe commands.  Axe is not like BASIC and so each command needs its own subroutine to add to your program.  For instance, lets say you use Pt-On() and Pt-Mask() in your code.  Each one has to bring its own 100+ byte subroutine into your program.  But you can probably get away with having just a Pt-Mask routine, recycling it to act like Pt-On by simply adding a 2nd layer to your sprite which is only 8 bytes extra instead of 100ish.  Or you could do the opposite too and only have Pt-On() and Pt-Change() to manually change both buffers at once.  This generally reduces the overall size of the program by a lot when you use the routines only once or very rarely in your code.  And I don't mean calling it rarely, it could be the most used routine in your code, I just mean rarely appears in your source.

More examples: You can draw pixels and boxes with just sprite commands.  Boxes can be drawn with just pixels or lines.  Strait lines can be drawn with just boxes or pixels.  Its best if you only have one type of DispGraph in your all your code.  Pre-flip sprites so you don't need the flip commands in your code.  etc.

The only downside is that it slightly reduces the speed since its not as specialized but its usually worth it because you save a lot of memory, especially in smaller programs.

[ztrumpet]

Awesome!  Thanks squidgetx!

[Runer112]

In case anyone was wondering, here is the smallest loop structure that I know of in Axe. It will execute the loop n times, with A starting at n-1 and decreasing down to 0:

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1 2 3 4 5 6

n While   -1→A   ;Code   A End

And if Quigibo adds conditional jumps, this sort of Do...While loop would be even smaller (which he has not yet, so don't bother with this code as of Axe 0.4.7):

Code: Select All | Copy To Clipboard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

n Lbl L   →A   ;Code !If A-1   Goto L End

EDIT: As a side note in case you read this Quigibo, any chance for Do...While loops? They're more optimized than normal While loops.

[Michael_Lee]

In case anyone was wondering, here is the smallest loop structure that I know of in Axe.

By smallest, do you mean in terms of size, or in terms of speed?  (or both?)

[Runer112]

Both It's 8 bytes smaller and should save about 52 t-states per iteration.

[Builderboy]

Wow that is a great loop optimization i think with all the optimizations present here i could shave hundreds of bytes off of all of my Axe projects

[squidgetx]

Quigibo, when I use "+" I meant 16 bit "or" (I think I wrote that there next to it...) and wow, nice, Runer

Also, edited those new opts into the first post

[DJ Omnimaga]

Nice, so would it be better to use this instead of a For( loop?

[squidgetx]

^yes.

I'm adding another opt that is rather specific (ofc by Runer112) (moving around a sprite) but I think that people will appreciate it. i also commented it so that you can understand what it's doing more easily (because at first you can't even begin to decipher what it's doing lol)

[Munchor]

Nice squidget, the one from the other post, I went

[squidgetx]

updated with discussion regarding +1 over 1 with respect to false expression testing (!If statements)

Again, thanks to Runer112 lol