3 ms·
You are correct. And using a mov to ax rather than xor+mov to al is counter-intuitively one byte smaller (there's one more byte of immediate value in the former
by exDM69 15y ago
You are correct. And using a mov to ax rather than xor+mov to al is counter-intuitively one byte smaller (there's one more byte of immediate value in the former). Every byte counts!
(I tested using "nasm -f bin")
- gliptic 15y agoHowever, in .coms you could assume that AX was 0 upon entry and skip the XOR.