| ??? 02/18/06 03:49 Read: times |
#110265 - I'm not so sure... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I do not see any savings in either cycles or execution time by using A as the incremental index. Before each MOVC you must first restore the previous index value back to A before you can increment it and then save it.
I can see some performance benefit if the effective address needed to be decremented within a one byte range. Hal |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MOVC A , @A+DPTR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thats the way it works | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| its because its..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MOVC A , @A+DPTR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A does not have to be 0 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It can be convenient ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| velocity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'm not so sure... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Be carefull | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How I use that MOVC | 01/01/70 00:00 |