> David Eisenberg wrote:
> I want to generate baseless code using as few instructions as possible,
> Can my macro modify the resulting condition code?
I'm horrified this was your solution especially considering all the other
options available.
1. Regardless of programming language or
Jonathan,
Thank you for that information! It's very helpful.
David
Any sequence of multiple instructions is almost certain to be
slower than the original CLC which I assume would be comparing
with a literal, especially if the macro expansion required a
branch. For baseless code, I normally still have a base
register for a static area containing literals and
>Are the Set/Insert Program Mask instructions useful for this?<
Yes, that's in the code snippet I posted at the start of this thread... I'm
wondering if there's an even more efficient way to do it. Perhaps not!
On 8/11/23 06:08:44, David Eisenberg wrote:
...
I know that I can always code the comparands in the correct order by loading
them into the high-halves of R0 and R1, then use CLHHR. Or, of course, I can
generate a CLC with a literal. But I figured I’d ask: if I use CLHHSI, then (if
the
So, your macro doesn't know the condition. I was thinking of something
like an IF macro.
OK, some more unsolicited free advice (as usual maybe worth what you pay
for it). I doubt that loading the operands into registers and comparing
them there is going to be any faster than a CLC. It will
>I think it would much more straightforward to adjust the condition<
Steve,
I understand what you mean. My issue is that the macro is intended to replace
pre-existing CLC instructions within legacy applications (the macro will
examine and potentially modify the comparands prior to the
I think it would much more straightforward to adjust the condition, i.e.
when you need to reverse the specified operand order, you change JL to JNL,
H to NH, NL to L, NH to H. Might be messy in the macro, but the executable
part would be clean.
For the record, I wouldn't go down this road at
