指针间接长寻址模式不是很有用吗？

昨天我看了一下指针间接长寻址模式。只有当寄存器X用于其他目的时，这似乎才有用：


加载到：
ldw x，5000美元
ld a，（x）
VS
ld a，（（$ 5000）
两者的代码大小均为4字节，前者需要3个周期，而后者需要4个周期。
ldw x，5000美元
ldw x，（x）
与
ldw x，（（$ 5000））
两者的代码大小均为4字节，前者需要4个周期，后者需要5个周期。
ldw y，$ 5000
ldw（y），x
VS
ldw（（$ 5000），x
这里前者占用6个字节的代码大小和4个周期，而后者占用4个字节的代码大小和5个周期。

有些完全没有意义：
ldw x，5000美元
ldw x，（x）
与
ldw x，（（$ 5000））
两者都需要4个字节的代码大小，但前者需要4个周期，而后者需要5个周期！在这里我们无论如何都要覆盖x。

在我看来，指针间接长寻址模式仅在非常特殊的情况下才有用，我想知道为什么它被包含在内。
我错过了这种寻址方式吗？

菲利普



以下为原文




Yesterday I had a look at the pointer indirect long addressing mode. It seems this one is useful only when register X is in use for other purposes:


Loading into a:
ldw x, $5000
ld a, (x)
vs
ld a, (($5000)
Both have a code size of 4 bytes, and the former takes 3 cycles while the latter takes 4 cycles.
ldw x, $5000
ldw x, (x)
vs.
ldw x, (($5000))
Both have a code size of 4 bytes,the former takes 4 cycles, the latter takes 5 cycles.
ldw y, $5000
ldw (y), x
vs
ldw (($5000), x
Here the former takes 6 bytes of code size and 4 cycles, while the latter takes 4 bytes of code size and 5 cycles.

Some are completly pointless:
ldw x, $5000
ldw x, (x)
vs.
ldw x, (($5000))
Both take 4 bytes of code size, but the former takes 4 cycles, while the latter takes 5! And here we overwrite x anyway.

It seems to me that pointer indirect long addressing mode is useful only in very specific circumstances, and I wonder why it was included at all.
Am I missing something about this addressing mode?

Philipp