6502 assembly optimisations
This page is about optimisations that are possible in assembly language, or various things one programmer has to keep in mind to make his code as optimal as possible.
There is two major kind of optimisations: Optimisation for speed (code executes in fewer cycles) and optimisation for size (the code takes fewer bytes).
There is also some other kinds of optimisations, such as constant-executing-time optimisation (code execute in a constant number of cycle no matter what it has to do), or RAM usage optimisation (use as few variables as possible). Because those optimisations have more to do with the algorithm than with its implementation in assembly, only speed and size optimisations will be discussed in this article.
- 1 Optimise both speed and size of the code
- 1.1 Avoid a jsr + rts chain
- 1.2 Split word tables in high and low components
- 1.3 Use Jump tables with RTS instruction instead of JMP indirect instruction
- 1.4 Inline subroutine called only one time through the whole program
- 1.5 Arithmetic shift right
- 1.6 Easily test 2 upper bits of a variable
- 1.7 Negating a value without temporaries
- 1.8 Avoiding the need for CLC/SEC with ADC/SBC
- 1.9 Test bits in decreasing order
- 1.10 Test bits in increasing order
- 1.11 Test bits without destroying the accumulator
- 1.12 Use opposite rotate instead of a great number of shifts
- 2 Optimise speed at the expense of size
- 3 Optimise code size at the expense of cycles
- 4 See also
- 5 Notes
Optimise both speed and size of the code
Avoid a jsr + rts chain
A tail call occurs when a subroutine finishes by calling another subroutine. This can be optimised into a JMP instruction:
MySubroutine lda Foo sta Bar jsr SomeRandomRoutine rts
MySubroutine lda Foo sta Bar jmp SomeRandomRoutine
Savings : 9 cycles, 1 byte
Split word tables in high and low components
This optimisation is not human friendly, makes the source code much bigger, but still makes the compiled size smaller and faster:
Example lda FooBar asl A tax lda PointerTable,X sta Temp lda PointerTable+1,X sta Temp+1 .... PointerTable .dw Pointer1, Pointer2, ....
Example ldx FooBar lda PointerTableL,X sta Temp lda PointerTableH,X sta Temp+1 .... PointerTableL .byt <Pointer1, <Pointer2, .... PointerTableH .byt >Pointer1, >Pointer2, ....
Some assemblers may have a way to implement a macro to automatically make the table coded like this (Unofficial MagicKit Assembler is one such program).
Savings : 2 bytes, 4 cycles
Use Jump tables with RTS instruction instead of JMP indirect instruction
The so-called RTS Trick is a method of implementing jump tables by pushing a subroutine's entry point to the stack.
; This: ldx JumpEntry lda PointerTableH,X sta Temp+1 lda PointerTableL,X sta Temp jmp [Temp] ; becomes this: ldx JumpEntry lda PointerTableH,X pha lda PointerTableL,X pha rts
Note that PointerTable entries must point to one byte before the intended target when the RTS trick is used, because RTS will add 1 to the offset.
Temp is outside zero page, this saves 6 bytes and 1 cycle. If
Temp is within zero page, this saves 4 bytes and costs 1 cycle.
In either case, it frees up the RAM occupied by
Temp for other uses so long as the use of the RTS Trick does not occur at peak stack depth. In addition, it's reentrant, which means the NMI and IRQ handlers do not need dedicated 2-byte RAM allocations for their own
Combining this with the tail call optimization squeezes 1 more byte and 9 more cycles:
; This: jsr SomeOtherFunction ; MUST NOT modify JumpEntry ldx JumpEntry lda PointerTableH,X pha lda PointerTableL,X pha rts ; Becomes this: ldx JumpEntry lda PointerTableH,X pha lda PointerTableL,X pha jmp SomeOtherFunction
Here, the CPU runs
SomeOtherFunction, then returns to the function from the jump table, then returns to what called this dispatcher. One example is a
SomeOtherFunction that mixes player input into the random number generator's entropy pool before calling the routine for a particular game state.
Inline subroutine called only one time through the whole program
There is no reason to call a subroutine if it is only called a single time. It would be more optimal to just insert the code where the subroutine is called. However this makes the code less structured and harder to understand. Inline expansion of a subroutine into another subroutine can be done with a macro. One drawback is that if the subroutine is called in a loop, it may require some JMPing to work around the 128-byte limit on branch length.
How macros are used depends on the assembler so no code examples will be placed here to avoid further confusion.
In C, the
static inline keyword acts as a hint to expand a function as a macro.
Savings : 4 bytes, 12 cycles.
Arithmetic shift right
Compact way to divide a variable by 2 but keep its sign:
cmp #$80 ror A
Easily test 2 upper bits of a variable
lda FooBar asl A ;C = b7, N = b6
bit Foobar ;N = b7, V = b6, regardless of the value of A.
This can be e.g. used to poll the sprite-0-hit flag in $2002.
Negating a value without temporaries
eor #$FF clc adc #1
Avoiding the need for CLC/SEC with ADC/SBC
When using ADC #imm, somewhere where it is known carry is already cleared, there's no need to use a CLC instruction. However, that carry is known to be set (for example, the code is located in a branch that is only ever entered with a BCS instruction), it's still possible to avoid using CLC by just doing ADC #(value-1). The
PLOT subroutine in the Apple II Monitor uses this.
Similarly for SBC #imm: When it is known that carry is clear, SEC instruction can be avoided by just doing SBC #(value+1) or ADC #<-value.
Test bits in decreasing order
lda foobar bmi bit7_set cmp #$40 ; we know that bit 7 wasn't set bcs bit6_set cmp #$20 bcs bit5_set ; and so on
Or the value of A need to be preserved :
lda foobar asl bcs bit7_set asl bcs bit6_set asl bcs bit5_set ; and so on
This saves one byte per comparison, but 2 cycles more are used because of the extra ASL.
Test bits in increasing order
lda foobar lsr bcs bit0_set lsr bcs bit1_set lsr bcs bit2_set ; and so on
Note: This does not preserve the value of A.
Test bits without destroying the accumulator
The AND instruction can be used to test bits, but this destroy the value in the accumulator. The BIT can do this but it has no immediate adressing mode. A way to do it is to look for an opcode that has the bits that needs to be tested, and using bit $xxxx on this opcode.
Example lda foobar and #$30 beq bits_clear lda foobar .... bits_clear lda foobar .....
Example lda foobar bit _bmi_instruction ;equivalent to and #$30 but preserves A beq bits_clear .... bits_clear ..... anywhere_in_the_code .... _bmi_instruction ;The BMI opcode = $30 bmi somewhere
Savings : 2 cycles, 3 bytes
Use opposite rotate instead of a great number of shifts
To retrieve the 3 highest bits of a value in the low positions, it is tempting to do 5 LSRs in a row. However, if it is not needed for the 5 top bits to be cleared, this is more efficient:
lda value ; got: 76543210 c rol ; got: 6543210c 7 rol ; got: 543210c7 6 rol ; got: 43210c76 5 rol ; got: 3210c765 4 ; Only care about these ^^^
It works the same for replacing 5 ASLs with 4 RORs.
3 RORs can replace 6 ASLs :
lda value ; got: 76453210 c ror ; got: c7654321 0 ror ; got: 0c765432 1 ror ; got: 10c76543 2 and #$C0 ; got: 10------
Optimise speed at the expense of size
Those optimisations will make code faster to execute, but use more ROM. Therefore, it is useful in NMI routines and other things that need to run fast.
Use identity look-up table instead of temp variable
Example ldx Foo lda Bar stx Temp clc adc Temp ;A = Foo + Bar
Example ldx Foo lda Bar clc adc Identity,X ;A = Foo + Bar Identity .byt $00, $01, $02, $03, .....
If the program is very large (such as in large games), it is possible that this way eventually saves ROM; also, it might save one byte of RAM in some circumstances.
Savings : 2 cycles
Use look-up table to shift left 4 times
Provided that the high nibble is already cleared, the value can be shifted left by 4 by making a look-up table.
Example: lda rownum asl A asl A asl A asl A rts
Example: ldx rownum lda times_sixteen,x rts times_sixteen: .byt $00, $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60, $70 .byt $80, $90, $A0, $B0, $C0, $D0, $E0, $F0
In very large programs, this might save some ROM space. However, it will use up the X register, so it might not be ideal.
Savings: 4 cycles
Optimise code size at the expense of cycles
Those optimisations will produce code that is smaller but takes more cycles to execute. Therefore, it can be used in the parts of the program that do not have to be fast.
Use the stack instead of a temp variable
Example lda Foo sta Temp lda Bar .... .... lda Temp ;Restores Foo .....
Example lda Foo pha lda Bar .... .... pla ;Restores Foo .....
Savings : 2 bytes.
Use an "intelligent" argument system
Each time a routine needs multiple bytes of arguments (>3) it's hard to code it without wasting a lot of bytes.
Example lda Argument1 sta Temp lda Argument2 ldx Argument3 ldy Argument4 jsr RoutineWhichNeeds4Args .....
Becomes something like:
Example jsr PassArguments .dw RoutineWhichNeeds4Args .db Argument1, Argument2, Argument3, Argument4 .db $00 .... PassArguments pla tay pla pha ; put the high byte back sta pointer+1 ldx #$00 beq SKIP LOOP sta parameters,x inx SKIP iny ; pointing one short first pass here fixes that lda (pointer),y bne LOOP iny lda (pointer),y beq LOOP dey ; fix the return address guess we can't return to a ; break tya pha jmp (parameters)
Syscalls in Apple ProDOS and FDS BIOS work this way.
Savings : Complicated to estimate - only saves bytes if the trick is used fairly often across the program, in order to compensate for the size of the PassArguments routine.
Using relative branch instruction instead of absolute
If the state of one of the processor flags is already known at this point and the branch target is not too far away, then a condition branch instruction can be used.
Savings : 1 byte.
- Pedants may complain that "compile" is incorrect terminology for "translate a program written in assembly language into object code". But it is the most familiar term meaning "translate a program, no matter the language, into object code", and the same issues apply to code generators within a compiler that targets the 6502 as to programs written in 6502 assembly language.
- ProDOS 8 Technical Reference Manual