Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!fbog!dbk
From: dbk@fbog.UUCP (Dave B. Kinzer @ Price Rd. GEG)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Adjusting the stack pointer
Summary: I'm wrong, plus strangeness
Keywords: assembler A7 SP
Message-ID: <1688@fbog.UUCP>
Date: 27 Dec 88 17:29:07 GMT
References: <5047@garfield.MUN.EDU> <1667@fbog.UUCP> <5569@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dbk@fbog.UUCP (Dave B. Kinzer @ Price Rd. GEG)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 24

In article <5047@garfield.MUN.EDU> john13@garfield.MUN.EDU (John Russell) writes:
 >>Manx-generated code uses the form
 >>addq.w #(4*N),sp
 >>     ^
 vs:
 >>addq.l #(4*N),sp
 >>     ^
In article <1667@fbog.UUCP> dbk@fbog.UUCP (Dave B. Kinzer @ Price Rd. GEG) writes:
 The Manx generated code is faster (fewer instruction fetches from memory).

In article <5569@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>	Actually no, since addq can only deal with immediates between 1
>and 8.  Of course, this is probably another case of the Manx assembler
>output being misleading, and the assembler changes that to an adda.w.

   You're right, I missed the 'q' part.  But just for humor, check table F-8
in your Programmers Reference Manual (fourth edition page 210) where it 
says 4 cycles for a word size, 8 for a long.  This must be a misprint since
both instructions perform the same function for address register destinations.


|    // GOATS - Gladly Offering All Their Support  Dave Kinzer (602)897-3085|
|   //  >> In Hell you need 4MB to Multitask!  <<  uunet!nud!fbog!dbk       |
| \X/   #define policy_maker(name) (name->salary > 3 * dave.salary)         |