'(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: Bit Number to Bit Ma'
| Sigh... Yet another one. I guess I'll have to remove the
"Reply-To" header from my outgoing e-mail.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: John Payson <Mcs.Net> supercat
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: Bit Number to Bit Mask Question
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:53:18 -0500 (CDT)
Ah... good way to do the conditional shift without worrying about
carry flag. Cool.
> btfsc BITNUM,2
> swapf temp,f
> movfw temp
> ; 9 words / 9 cycles
That's a savings. Probably makes it as good as the table for many
Okay, the SUBLW seems to have been the trick I was looking for.
> > Interesting, but even worse (unless I'm missing an optimization on
> > that ending part). Anyone see any improvements for those two methods
> > above?
> The first code looks better .
I guess, it does seem to be a word shorter/cycle faster. Though
there's something I like aesthetically about the second... I'll just
have to find a way to rid of those 4 annoying cycles (and the use of
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
On 17 Sep 97 at 19:30, Andrew Warren wrote:
> Sigh... Yet another one. I guess I'll have to remove the
> "Reply-To" header from my outgoing e-mail.
You sure? Maybe its another symptom from the problem thats causing
dupes and rejected dupes messages. Try putting a human-removable but
machine unfriendly section in the reply to - that should prove it.
(remove the you know what before replying)
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997
, 1998 only
- New search...