[A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.

[A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.

• To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org>
• Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:16:31 +0200
• In-Reply-To: <002101c361b3$670f44c0$16fe8842@kcll>
• References: <000801c36115$47e1e560$16fe8842@kcll> <Law11-OE583CqUAynSq0001e4a8@hotmail.com> <002101c361b3$670f44c0$16fe8842@kcll>
• Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:43:43 -0500, Matthew Marshall wrote:

> >  - relative jumps (jr) are smaller and faster than absolute jumps
> >  (jp).
> 
> WHAT!!!  I thought that jr took 12 cycles while jp took 10!  (Less if
> the address is pointed to by a register, I think.)

That's correct. Sure the byte you save with jr is often more
important than the loss of 2 clock cycles.

• [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• From: "Matthew Marshall" <mmarshall@myrealbox.com>

• [A83] Signed division by a power of two.
• From: "Matthew Marshall" <mmarshall@myrealbox.com>
• [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• From: "Jeff" <telepath75@hotmail.com>
• [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• From: "Matthew Marshall" <mmarshall@myrealbox.com>

• Prev: [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• Next: [A83] Re: Signed division by a power of two.
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread