> You can write a macro for MOVLF: the rationale is that such a macro will > still, probably, be faster than a MOVLF-like instruction on a 80x86 CPU... It depends on... which x86 you are talking about and what is the program flow. This was true with 80286, 80386 but 486 was far better on this manner, especially Cypress clones. Intel Pentium has a quite reasonable pipelining mechanism, so that in ideal case each instruction takes 1 cycle - well, almost :-) A P4 has a nice dual pipeline and program flow perdition, and 3 level of cache. IA64 executes 3 instructions in a cycle so we should not really compare that huge elephant to a our small mouse :-) Tamas On 7/27/07, Dario Greggio wrote: > > Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote: > > > I know it's hardly a problem to load the literal into W first, then move > > W into the desired file, but why would they fail to design such a useful > > one-step function? > > a matter of RISC architecture... I guess :) > MOVFF (file to file) came out in 18F parts, was not there on earlier ones. > > You can write a macro for MOVLF: the rationale is that such a macro will > still, probably, be faster than a MOVLF-like instruction on a 80x86 CPU... > > > -- > Ciao, Dario > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist