Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth Implementation
Message-ID: <1896.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 22 Oct 90 00:57:58 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 23


   To: JONAH THOMAS                  Refer#: 4054
 From: DAVE SIEGEL                     Read: NO
 Subj: 8086 CODE                     Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
 JT>  I figured that since the only difference between them was the two
 JT>assembly instructions, that would be the only thing to make a
 JT>difference in the speed.  But the PUSH and POP combination actually
 JT>came out faster.  This is a memory operation where the other is just
 JT>register to register!  How could it possibly be faster?  Is it 4
 JT>cycles where BX AX MOV, is 5?
 The MOV, MOV sequence uses more memory than the PUSH, POP sequence.
 (Each MOV is a two byte instruction, while PUSH and POP are single
 byte instructions).  For more details on "interesting" performance
 characteristics of Intel CPUs, see Abrash's Zen of Assembler.
 -dms
 ---
  ~ EZ-Reader 1.21 ~ 

 PCRelay:MOONDOG -> #35 RelayNet (tm)
 4.10               MoonDog BBS Brooklyn,NY 718 692-2498 9600-V
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp