Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!src.honeywell.com!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU!MQUINN%UTCVM From: MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: MacMusings Message-ID: <9010281734.AA18141@apple.com> Date: 28 Oct 90 17:19:58 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 27 On Sat, 27 Oct 90 21:28:58 GMT Doug Gwyn said: >The idea is quite simple. A machine instruction must specify what is to [stuff deleted to save space] >destination registers). I always wondered how that worked. I'll probably end up losing sleep tonight messing around with the 816 instruction set now that I have a little bit of an idea on how that works. :) Thanks for the info. >One should note, however, that when fewer alternatives exist in the >instructions, in general it will take more instructions to accomplish >a given algorithm. The trade-offs are not simple to evaluate. Yeah, that's what I thought, but how can having more bits per instruction slow down, increase size, or make a program sloppy? I think I can see how it might slow it down (if it does), but I'd think that it would still be faster and more efficient than the extra instructions to accomplish that task (as with that particular case I was originally talking about with having more registers). ____________________________________________________________________ |CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED C | | |ED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CEN| BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | |ENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSOR| pro-line: | |ORED CEBSORED CENSORED CENSORED C| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|