it's misleading that you write both here and in your blog "C/C++". cc65 doesn't support C++, and your example is pure C/ASM. i generally dislike the term "C/C++" as it suggests that both are almost the same thing, or as microsoft wants us to believe: that C is the old obsolete thing noone should use because it's "superseded" by C++.
it's misleading that you write both here and in your blog "C/C++". cc65 doesn't support C++, and your example is pure C/ASM. i generally dislike the term "C/C++" as it suggests that both are almost the same thing, or as microsoft wants us to believe: that C is the old obsolete thing noone should use because it's "superseded" by C++.