Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Codemonkeyism | Hacker News Reader

Same experience here. Came from a C64 (6202) to a CPC (Z80) in the 80s and the Z80 felt much more powerful and expressive with its instruction set and registers - also the instruction set of the Z80 felt more logical and planned.

View on HN

Indeed it felt that way, but in practice the 6502’s indirect addressing gives you 128 16-bit registers compared to the z80’s 5+3 (hl,de,bc,ix,iy,hl’,de’,bc’) which is a winner for code generation and macro programming.

No longer an expert in Z80 - and perhaps I never was as much of my assembler career was Amiga 68k - but didn't the Z80 also have indirect adressing?

No[0]. To read a byte through a pointer at IX, you have to:

    LD L,(IX+0)
    LD H,(IX+1)
    LD A,(HL)

On the 6502, you can do that in one instruction[0] if your X or Y registers are zero (and more often than not, you can use the indexed-indirect or indirect-indexed to save even more instructions):

     LDA ($40,X) ; if X == 0, and $40 is your pointer.

[0] https://8bitnotes.com/2017/05/z80-addressing-modes/

[1] http://www.obelisk.me.uk/6502/addressing.html

From memory the IX and IY instructions took a lot of clock cycles and I avoided them unless there was a really good reason to use them.

I've just had a quick look at an instruction cycle table and it seems that without indexing they took 4 cycles more than HL then with an index that increased to 12 more.

Ref from search returning http://www.z80.info/z80time.txt

Reply on news.ycombinator.com