>> Have I miscounted my cycles? Is there ANY circumstance >> under which the first routine is 'quicker' than the >> second??? :-/ >The only thing I can think of is that the author made the same mistake as >I >did: assuming that the above 1 byte commands only take one cycle. Personal >remark: why do they need two??? is it not because the 6502/10 being a single cycle device, it has already started a read cycle assuming it needs the next byte regardless... once it identifies that it doesn't, it just trashes the byte and continues.... a primitive form of caching /pipe-lining PLEASE TAKE NOTE: The contents of this email (including any attachments) may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorised use of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please advise us immediately (you can contact us by telephone on +61 8 9441 2311 by reverse charge) and then permanently delete this email together with any attachments. We appreciate your co-operation. Whilst Orbital endeavours to take reasonable care to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from viruses or other defects, Orbital does not represent or warrant that such is explicitly the case (C) 2000: Orbital Engine Company (Australia) PTY LTD and its affiliates - This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail cbm-hackers-request@dot.tml.hut.fi.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.