delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer) |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem |
Date: | Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:27:15 GMT |
Organization: | always disorganized |
Lines: | 15 |
Message-ID: | <38f6d661.1644454@news.freeserve.net> |
References: | <38F20E7A DOT 3330E9A4 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <38F23A21 DOT A59621A1 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <38F49A45 DOT 13F0AB1 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8d4ca1 DOT 3vvqqup DOT 0 AT buerssner-17104 DOT user DOT cis DOT dfn DOT de> <38F60DB3 DOT E355975 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8d5ljq DOT 3vvqipv DOT 0 AT buerssner-17104 DOT user DOT cis DOT dfn DOT de> <38F6A29B DOT 3AAEC0E AT mtu-net DOT ru> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | modem-166.ohio.dialup.pol.co.uk |
X-Trace: | news6.svr.pol.co.uk 955700836 30143 62.137.86.166 (14 Apr 2000 08:27:16 GMT) |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 14 Apr 2000 08:27:16 GMT |
X-Complaints-To: | abuse AT theplanet DOT net |
X-Newsreader: | Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Alexei A. Frounze wrote: >Not really. Actually, my ASM code improves the performance greatly. Well, of course your asm is faster than unoptimized gcc output - as I said before, unoptimized gcc output is terrible. You should be comparing with optimized gcc output. >And I can't >copmare ASM vs optimized plain C because GCC/AS doesn't compile the source with >-O2 switch. It would do if you wrote it correctly. S.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |