Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
12/06/06 13:21
Modified:
  12/06/06 13:32

Read: times


 
#129071 - My bad.
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Just a small and irrelevant remark: Z80 did have blockmoves (LDIR/LDDR), and one would certainly not call it a DSP... :-) <p>

Ah, my bad (I'm still somewhat sad about not getting into assembly programming in the 80's ... when I was still young and things would have been even easier to learn. So I've never done anything in Z80 or 65xx assembly. I've had a project where the "old version" was completely in 68k assembly though, and had to work through it.).

However, I was not really referring to standard blockmoves (many architectures have those), but to explicit "delay" commands (copy a[i] to a[i+1]) that for example TI C54x DSPs have - even to the point where the delay is actually part of a single-cycle MAC instruction and thus does not create any overhead. But then again, this architecture also has hardware support for circular buffers, which is really neat.


List of 18 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
shifting array elements using bitwise opeartor inC            01/01/70 00:00      
   Why?            01/01/70 00:00      
   Elaborate please.            01/01/70 00:00      
       opeartor inC            01/01/70 00:00      
         Possibly not            01/01/70 00:00      
            Possibly not            01/01/70 00:00      
               No, it doesn't            01/01/70 00:00      
                  *nitpick*            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Ah yes            01/01/70 00:00      
               may be not!            01/01/70 00:00      
                  We will never know ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                  my actual problem            01/01/70 00:00      
                     do not shift at all            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Circular buffer            01/01/70 00:00      
                     it's bytewise then, isn't it            01/01/70 00:00      
                     That makes _a lot_ more sense.            01/01/70 00:00      
                        just a small remark            01/01/70 00:00      
                           My bad.            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List