From: address@nospicedham.not.available   
      
   Wolfgang,   
      
   > no registers in use, ten bytes code, four byte data and 6 bytes stack   
      
   My apologies, but thats 8 bytes stack: The my_return RET address needs to go   
   somewhere too   
      
   That was the whole idea of my code, not having, while calling the INT   
   procedure, more on the stack than a regular INT would have [1].    And   
   although I'm not sure if there would actually be a valid use case, that way   
   even stack-based arguments (C style, popped by the caller) would keep   
   functioning.   
      
   [1] otherwise the regular "INT {byte value}", "RET" sequence wins   
   hands-down. :-)   
      
   And although my code does use registers, the ones that go into the code are   
   the ones the INT procedure is called with.   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)