Subject:
|
Re: nop in NQC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:13:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1004 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Dick Swan wrote:
>
> "John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Hr4HAJ.LIy@lugnet.com...
> > <snipped>
> > Or you can just forget all that. I ran the same test with the order
> > changed and the 3rd NOP of the 5 I tried was always the fastest
> > (regardless of which one I used). Modifying the program to try each
> > of 5 different options in 10 different orders yielded these results:
>
> A different measurement scheme gives better accuracy on the 'nop'
> timing.
Doh! Now I really feel sheepish. Please forgive my public display of idiocy.
John Hansen
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: nop in NQC?
|
| "John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:Hr4HAJ.LIy@lugnet.com... (...) A different measurement scheme gives better accuracy on the 'nop' timing. Just about every opcode takes the same amount of time. Priimarily because there's so (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
