It was written in assembly so goes through an assembler instead of a compiler.

I assume GP is talking about the bit in the article that goes

> RCT does this trick all the time, and even in its OpenRCT2 version, this syntax hasn’t been changed, since compilers won’t do this optimization for you.

▲

cjbgkagh 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That makes more sense, I second their sentiment, modern compilers will do this. I guess the trick is knowing to use numbers that have these options.

	▲	bombcar 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There was a recent article on HN about which compiler optimizations would occur and which wouldn't and it was surprising in two ways - first, it would make some that you might not expect, and it would not make others that you would - because in some obscure calling method, it wouldn't work. Fixing that path would usually get the expected optimization.