Sven Pran wrote:
> "Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4ors73dulp8t0ir9utbtk9l1mkudgfmqqa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:53:03 +0200 "Sven Pran" <no.direct@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> :>Never use ST in situations like this (when the alignment of &FLD
>> :>is unknown), use STCM instead:
>>
>> :> STCM 1,B'1111',&FLD
>>
>> Checks his watch. Yes, it is 2007.
>>
>> This has not been an issue since the 370.
>>
>> There are very few instructions which require alignment.
>
> Yes I know, that was a fact even in my years.
> Still there are two main reasons for using STCM rather than ST:
>
> 1: Performance (not a very big issue but still ...)
> 2: Documentation (byte oriented rather than word oriented)
>
> I suppose maybe the last reason is the more significant.
>
> regards Sven
>
>
I agree with the STCM solution, mainly because it is a sure way
to avoid an Assembler warning message. The performance issue is
a nit; I'm not even sure you could measure a significant difference.
|
