From: Fabrice ILPONSE <fabrice AT asim DOT lip6 DOT fr>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: assembly language
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:24:36 +0200
Organization: Universites Paris VI/Paris VII - France
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <35E3C644.FA5CF969@asim.lip6.fr>
References: <01J10IURTRN694HU4A AT SLU DOT EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: asim.lip6.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

GAMMELJL AT SLU DOT EDU wrote:
> 
>      Thanks to those who responded to my query about
>         movl $0x0,%edx    vs    xorl %edx,%edx
> The movl sets %edx to zero, whereas xorl sets %edx and the carry bit to
> zero.  Thus the two statements above are not exactly the same thing.
> This fact could make little difference to all but a few programmers,
> and those few probably already know to avoid the xorl command when
> writing codes in assembly language.  I find that the movl command
> results in faster executables even when xorl can be used as above
> (in those cases in which the carry bit does not matter).

Hi!!
	the problem with the movl is that the instruction code is bigger
because of the constate $0x0 that is included in it whereas not for the
xorl... ;)

bye
-- 
	^ ^ ^
	| | |
	+-+-+	Fabrice ILPONSE
	  |	email: fabrice AT asim DOT lip6 DOT fr
	  |
	  |
	  -