Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!sdrc!cinnet!kilian From: kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Short Hello World Message-ID: <1991May13.203042.1455@cinnet.com> Date: 13 May 91 20:30:42 GMT References: Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH Lines: 25 From article , by dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon): > In article <1991May7.001146.1830@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes: >> >>I think OldOpenLibrary() is used here on purpose. This way you can omit >>the moveq.l #0,d0 (or sub.l d0,d0 -- faster, I believe). Since no specific >>version (or higher) is need in this example using OldOpenLibrary is perfectly >>ok -- saves 2 bytes!! :-) > > Certainly less code ... two bytes, but not faster since OldOpenLibrary() > most likely just calls OpenLibrary() after loading a #0 into D0. > Yes, that's what I figured. But since you usually open the library just once (within a program), speed isn't an issue. > sub.l D0,D0 is not faster than moveq.l #0,D0 on a 68000. The two > instructions are both one word long. > > -Matt Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. -- /