On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 10:55:59 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
The cycle counts for 6502 are pretty easy though as they tend
to be related to the addressing mode and most of them are in
the range 1-5... No instruction for multiplication or
division... Oh the fun...
2-7 cycles ;-)
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 10:32:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 09:30:14 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
[...]
Heh, I remember they had a friday-night trivia contest at the
mid-90s students pub (for natural sciences) where one of the
questions was the
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 at 09:30:14 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
During the PC revolution I wrote an entire application in 8088
assembly. Used to know many of the opcodes and cycle counts
by heart like you do, but it's all but a faint memory now.
I had to lookup the exact cycle counts ;-)
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 21:46:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:41:32PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 20:28:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:06:17PM +, Patrick Schluter
> via
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:41:32PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 20:28:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:06:17PM +, Patrick Schluter via
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> > > Up to 32 bit processors, shifting
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 20:28:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:06:17PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:56:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:42:13PM +, Patrick Schluter
> via
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:06:17PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:56:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:42:13PM +, Patrick Schluter via
> > Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> > > byte b = nibble | ((nibble &
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:56:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:42:13PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 17:23:19 UTC, Michelle Long wrote:
> Is there any direct way to convert a signed nibble in to a
> signe
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:42:13PM +, Patrick Schluter via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 17:23:19 UTC, Michelle Long wrote:
> > Is there any direct way to convert a signed nibble in to a signed
> > byte with the same absolute value? Obviously I
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:47:04 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:42:13 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
byte b = nibble | ((nibble & 0x40)?0xF0:0);
don't you mean & 0x80 ?
He asked for signed nybble. So mine is wrong and yours also :-)
It's obviously 0x08 for the
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 05:23:19PM +, Michelle Long via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Is there any direct way to convert a signed nibble in to a signed byte
> with the same absolute value? Obviously I can do some bit comparisons
> but just curious if there is a very quick way.
Ass
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 18:42:13 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
byte b = nibble | ((nibble & 0x40)?0xF0:0);
don't you mean & 0x80 ?
On Monday, 7 January 2019 at 17:23:19 UTC, Michelle Long wrote:
Is there any direct way to convert a signed nibble in to a
signed byte with the same absolute value? Obviously I can do
some bit comparisons but just curious if there is a very quick
way.
byte b = nibble | ((nibble & 0x40)?
Is there any direct way to convert a signed nibble in to a signed
byte with the same absolute value? Obviously I can do some bit
comparisons but just curious if there is a very quick way.
14 matches
Mail list logo
