On 18 May 2010 16:23, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 May 2010 16:12, mike smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 18 May 2010 14:19, Dylan Tusler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Is >= slower than > by itself? >> >> Not at all. > > >> >> [ ... ] > > Not all instructions take the same number of clock cycles to execute (which > is not to say you're wrong - but the same number of instructions != the same > performance - and the results will be different on different x86/x64 > processors anyway so it is all kind of pointless).
and is the destination in cache, or not. Sure, I take your point. Optimising at the opcode level is not really profitable. (for this type of code. For tiny processors with 200 bytes of program memory or so, hell yes!) > > -- > David Connors ([email protected]) > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 > 189 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact > > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
