Date:	Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:25:13 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	1043730 <dfokkema AT cs DOT vu DOT nl>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: far pointers again
In-Reply-To:	<7tf476$8qj@cs.vu.nl>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991006162112.13916P-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 Fokkema DOT DBRA AT delorie DOT com wrote:

> I don't want to have test results and other stuff to justify the fact that
> the usage of far pointers in djgpp results in less efficient code.

Interesting attitude.  And I thought that one is supposed to measure 
and profile before one begins optimizing, since the first profile one
generates usually is a big surprise: the hot spots are in a place that is 
entirely different from where you expected.

Without profiling, you can (and usually will) end up optimizing to death 
some code that takes 20% of the total run time.

> So what is this gcc group that maybe should be told about considering far
> pointers?

Try gnu.gcc.bug.  There's also a mailing list for discussing GCC 
internals, I think you can find the address somewhere on 
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html.

- Raw text -