To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: SHIFTS vs MUL's
Message-ID: <19970210.173501.4967.2.chambersb@juno.com>
From: chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:32:51 EST

Well, some of you may recall that a while ago I was challenged to PROVE
(with code) that shifts are faster than MUL's for equivelant arithmetic. 
Actually, I couldn't QUITE do this - based on the minimum execution time
of 13 cycles for a mul (on a 486, sorry Pentium folks) I couldn't find
ANY number in the range 1-65536 that would take even this long.  If
someone think's they've found one, let me know and I'll take a look.

...Chambers