Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Benefits Message-ID: <7171@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 1 Dec 90 01:08:32 GMT References: <1990Nov25.040121.10773@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <536@ssp9.idca.tds.philips.nl> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 21 In article <536@ssp9.idca.tds.philips.nl>, dolf@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Dolf Grunbauer) writes: > Aha, one difference might be that these guys are writing self modifying code > which may not work on a 680[234]0 as the changes go into the data cache > not the main memory or instruction cache. That's a good one. Of course that's a very effective way of writing BitBlt on a 68020 if you explicitly flush the I-cache. Henry Spencer has claimed (and I believe him) that using this technique you can get 100% data bus utilisation with bitblt on a 68020. Of course on a 68000 you should probably just use the blitter. :-> Anyway, I've observed a positive correlation between "manic assembler program" and "does not work on the 68030". Assembly for critical code is one thing, but writing the whole thing in assembly is pure machismo. > 88 |_\ If you are granted one wish do you know what to wish for right now ? A time machine with extra plutonium in the trunk. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .