While we're on the subject of optimization...

[skimask]

Storing it as data in program memory uses about 1/4th the code space compared to LOOKUP.

If you'll have a lot of strings to display, it could save a big chunk of space.
Not that you need to worry about it with the 4620. (64kb)
<br>

Kudos to you and all that. I just went thru and converted all of my major string routines to your embedded routine example.
So far, I've saved 7,486 in code space (started with $9C22, now I'm only using $7EE4 of space).
And I've still got to optimize the rest of the code...

[Darrel Taylor]

Sweet!

Let me know how it is after optimizing the rest. Just for curiosity sake.
<br>

[skimask]

Down from $9CC4 to $7688, saved 9,788 so far, and I think I'm about done, getting to that point of diminishing returns. That and it's 5:30am....I'm just about spent...

[BigWumpus]

Try to replace the "goto" inside the macro by a "bra".

[Darrel Taylor]

Try to replace the "goto" inside the macro by a "bra".

Sure, good idea. It'll save another word for each instance of PrintStr.
And it only takes one edit.
<br>

[skimask]

Sure, good idea. It'll save another word for each instance of PrintStr.
And it only takes one edit.
<br>

And another 129 words saved, brings me up to 9,917 saved so far.
At this rate, I'll be able to fit the program into a 10F202 soon !

[skimask]

And another 129 words saved, brings me up to 9,917 saved so far.
At this rate, I'll be able to fit the program into a 10F202 soon !

And another 3,000-ish saved...from $9CC4 to $6A40... 12,932 words saved so far...