🚀 go-pugleaf

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)         |