Timothy Baldwin wrote: As for discouraging reverse-engineering, this code is published under the GNU General Public Licence If it weren't for the comments, that might explain it. BTW, would the GPL require the release of source code for things like p-code which is interpreted by the rest of the program? What if the source code for the p-code never existed (because it was hand-generated)?

Coding Bugs: It's What's For Dinner!™ Software Zen: delete this; Fold With Us![^]

This processor does have a jump instruction, but putting everything in copy_flash would be better. And the assumption the the return address is at the top of the stack breaks when optimisation is not enabled. What registers can be changed by a function is irrelevant here. The question is what inline assembler is allowed to do, whilst Visual C++ will parse inline assembler to determine register usage, GCC will not. If one of the registers has been allocated for another purpose by the compiler, it will break. Neither Visual C++ or GCC guarantees that registers will remain unchanged between consecutive asm statements. If profiling is enabled this code will break.