Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!wjh12!lotto
From: lotto@wjh12.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: NOP
Message-ID: <100@wjh12.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 30-Sep-87 09:16:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: wjh12.100
Posted: Wed Sep 30 09:16:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Oct-87 00:56:20 EDT
References: <2306@sphinx.uchicago.edu> <4478@amd.AMD.COM> <309@ncrcan.UUCP>
Reply-To: lotto@wjh12.UUCP (Jerry Lotto)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Chem. Dept.
Lines: 24
Keywords: NOP

In article <309@ncrcan.UUCP> brian@ncrcan.UUCP () writes:
>In article <4478@amd.AMD.COM> ching@amd.UUCP (Mike Ching) writes:
>>.... The NOPs are never executed and don't slow down the
>>processor.
>Sorry, but the NOPS are always executed (how would the processor know that

Mild flame...

I wish people would think before posting. The first article stated:
"NOPs are inserted after JMPs that were found not to require the full
three bytes." NOPs after JMPs are NOT going to be executed because IP
is probably never going to point to them. If you DO execute a NOP, of
course it will take (some) time. You did prefetch the instruction, but
this always happens for the bytes following a JMP anyway, and that was
not what the argument was about.

It is dangerous to quote someone out of context, but if you are going
to take them to task, at least READ the whole article!

Mild flame off...
-- 
Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept.
UUCP:  {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lotto
ARPA:  lotto@harvard.harvard.edu