delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/01/05/10:41:22

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:48:32 +0200
Organization: NetVision Israel
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000105104810.7920O-100000@is>
References: <199912312332 DOT RAA15911 AT lakdiva DOT slt DOT lk> <84tj7t$si3$1 AT soap DOT pipex DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 947062317 4675 199.203.121.2 (5 Jan 2000 08:51:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jan 2000 08:51:57 GMT
X-Sender: eliz AT is
In-Reply-To: <84tj7t$si3$1@soap.pipex.net>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Stephen Howe wrote:

> Your right. But I would be looking separately at
> 
> (i) integer optimisation
> (ii) fp optimisation
> (iii) space and time saving optimisations
> (iv) loop optimisations
> (v) stack lifetime optimisations
> (vi) tail optimisations
> etc.

AFAIK, this is already done on the page where Salvador pointed you.

> Speaking honestly, there are a number of areas where the compiler &
> libraries could be improved. For instance, the 32-bit maths libraries are
> built assuming that your executables (32-bit DOS, Win32, OS/2 etc) could be
> running on a 386+287 combination which implies fwait opcodes. Well how many
> people are running on that combination? Not many, I bet. For everyone
> running 486 or better, these can be removed.

What library, specifically, are you talking about?  The DJGPP library
has only 11 FWAIT instructions in 8 of its math functions; the next
version of the library (to be released very soon) reduces this to 3
FWAIT instructions in 3 functions.  I don't see any problem here.

The compiler might emit FWAIT while compiling FP code, but I'd expect
latest versions of GCC to omit them when the command-line switches
tell it to use Pentium as the target.

So it seems that this is a non-issue.

> Actually IMHO a test of how fast the mode switching routines are
> would really indicate how good a protected mode environment
> really is specially for a real mode OS like DOS(the quality of the
> compiler also plays a part true enough).
> >>
> 
> At this point are you talking about 32-bit DOS? If so, would you not mostly
> be measuring the DOS extenders performance

Not quite true.  Calling real-mode services has different overheads,
depending what environments and waht methods are used to call
real-mode code from a protected-mode program.  Part of this overhead
is in the library (copying data to conventional memory, preparing the
real-mode call structures, etc.).

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019