I never know how to portray the *+1 when displaying here as some assemblers use *+1 and some use *+3. I don't know what the common understanding is. I guess I should have used a label instead. BTW, I do short tests like this in the mini-assembler and have to type it in to the forums.

But I missed a line anyways.
It should have been



In my tests this routine falls through an doesn't crash. If it is a bug in my emulator, that has been the reason I have avoided programming that way. But I just tested again and it and DOH! it works.

Since I used an C64 assembler back in the day that used the "+" for transient labels, and now use ACME, I never got into using "*" based relative branch addressing ...
... and, yes, why I noted that it might be assembler dependent. Testing, I see that ACME takes it as set at the beginning of the line of assembly, presumably until that line of assembly is completed, so it would be *+3 for ACME to get a branch operand of $01 (given that 6502 branch operands are relative to the start of the following opcode).

But when I first used it, it was the MOS6510 that decided for me how an opcode works, and AFAIR, setting the zero flag the same as an AND would have done is how BIT has always worked.

What do you think of the Kindle Unlimited version of the programming manual, Garth? J

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

It looks like its the 2015 soft-cover version.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

Yeah, it looks like it was released along with (at the same time as) the single-board dev boards (SBX, QBX, etc.).