Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:54:45 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
In-Reply-To:	<38FB7858.41B090DB@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10004180546120.2002-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> 1. You simply proved that GCC has an optimizer efficient enough. Okay, I agree.
> Your code that works 2 FPS fater for you works the same for me as before. I
> think it doesn't mean faster than mine (just 2.9%).

Yes but this proved that the C compiler is almost as *good* if not
*better* than "hand sloptimised" code and all the pain that goes into
creating it. 

Which is what a number of people have been trying to tell you over the
past few threads, but you wouldn't belive it and here you got the proof.

> So, we have a good optimizer and you proved this. Great. I'm glad.
> This means I can throw away a lot of inline ASM now.

Yes, so you can code most of your routines in C and then run the profiler
and find out the problem areas and *then* decide what to write and whether
writing in assembly is worth the pain...
 

> Seems that this is a story that can teach everyone (me=best example). :))

Yes...To listen a bit more to other people's opinions hopefully .. Most
people who share there opinions on this forum are quite knowledgable and
speak with a lot of programming experience. It would be unwise to ignore
that advice nomatter how different it might be to your beliefs.

Grendel


Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -