Have I just discovered a hole in a hash algorythm, or does someone need to tune a filter on the PICLIST ? ;) Peter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:53:43 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at MITVMA (1.8c)" To: "Peter (plp)" Subject: Rejected posting to PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Your message is being returned to you unprocessed because it appears to have already been distributed to the PICLIST list. That is, a message with identical text (but possibly with different mail headers) has been posted to the list recently, either by you or by someone else. If you have a good reason to resend this message to the list (for instance because you have been notified of a hardware failure with loss of data), please alter the text of the message in some way and resend it to the list. Note that altering the "Subject:" line or adding blank lines at the top or bottom of the message is not sufficient; you should instead add a sentence or two at the top explaining why you are resending the message, so that the other subscribers understand why they are getting two copies of the same message. ------------------------ Rejected message (43 lines) -------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2b/1. 8b) with BSMTP id 1845; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:51:37 -0400 Received: from actcom.co.il [192.114.47.1] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:51:35 EDT X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by actcom.co.il Received: from mail.plp4 by actcom.co.il with ESMTP (8.8.6/actcom-0.2) id TAA05065 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:50:59 +0300 (EET DST) (rfc931-sender: p37.ta5.actcom.co.il [192.115.23.147]) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.plp4 (8.8.4/8.8.4.1) with SMTP id SAA01392 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:00:58 GM T Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:00:57 +0000 ( ) From: "Peter L. Peres" X-Sender: plp@plp4 To: pic microcontroller discussion list Subject: Re: Add and Instruction Cycles In-Reply-To: <35B716D0.2BEA@oen.siemens.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Nuno Pedrosa wrote: > Hi! > > First, let me thank all the people that answered my questions about > fuel measurement, radio, etc. I know I haven't replied to all, but it's > kind of hard to keep up with all the messages flowing. > > Now, my question: > While trying to count the bits on a byte, I stumbled into this: > GOTO is a 2 cycle instruction. > ADDWF is 1 cycle > I think the difference is on the instruction pipeline behaviour, right? > > However, if you do ADDWF PC, what happens to the pipeline? Does ADDWF > take 2 cycles in this situation? If not, why not? It takes two, it's a special case, and this is one of those things when you're told to believe and not to enquire. Peter