[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
From: |
Parthasaradhi Nayani |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:21:46 -0800 (PST) |
> From: Nicholas Vinen <address@hidden>
For example, things like "unsigned char x, y;
> x = y>>4" could
> use the nibble swap instruction rather than four shifts,
> and things like
Shifting a byte or int right or left must push in 00s from the other side so
swapping a nibble is not the right thing to do. So is the case with other
examples. Correct me if I am wrong.
Nayani
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance,
Parthasaradhi Nayani <=
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/02/28