Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: skip instructions
Message-ID: <12162@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 11:42:47 GMT
References: <1182@opus.NMSU.Edu> <1991May05.174307.8952@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> <1991May10.004650.7258@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: comp
Lines: 18

In article <1991May10.004650.7258@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, jallen@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Joseph Allen) writes:
> In article <1991May05.174307.8952@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
> >In article <1182@opus.NMSU.Edu> jthomas@nmsu.edu (James Thomas) writes:

			...........................

> Yes! lets get rid of those icky condition flags.  How about a "hop"
> instruction?

Why get rid of condition flags?  Other than the condition register, they take
up little space, and also they cost essentially nothing.  Looking at one or
two bits is certainly cheaper than comparing two quantities, even if they are
in registers.  Overflow and carry are useful.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)