Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Short Hello World Message-ID: Date: 15 May 91 00:04:39 GMT References: <1804@tardis.Tymnet.COM> <1991May7.001146.1830@cinnet.com> <19216341.ARN0401@asgard.pub.uu.oz.au> Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 30 In article <19216341.ARN0401@asgard.pub.uu.oz.au> bart@asgard.pub.uu.oz.au (John Butcher) writes: >In article , Matthew Dillon writes: > >> sub.l D0,D0 is not faster than moveq.l #0,D0 on a 68000. The two >> instructions are both one word long. > >What you say is right, but the reasons behind it are worng. >Instruction length != instruction timing : >sub.l d0,d0 == 6 ( or is it 8 ?? ) >moveq.l #0,d0 == 4 Huh? I said that sub.l D0,D0 is not faster than moveq.l #0,D0 on a 68000 even though they are the same size. I NEVER said that instruction length == instruction timing. In fact, my original statement says the exact reverse. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > John Butcher : bart@asgard.pub.uu.oz.au > ..!munnari!eyrie.oz.au!asgard!bart >"To understand recursion you must understand recursion" - Andrew Koenig -Matt -- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US 891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon Berkeley, Ca. 94708 USA