delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Message-Id: | <200005301754.UAA08549@mailgw1.netvision.net.il> |
Date: | Tue, 30 May 2000 20:52:58 +0200 |
X-Mailer: | Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
To: | Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com> |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <3933DFC3.D8C10F5C@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on |
Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:31 -0500) | |
Subject: | Re: Bug 314 |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000523144730 DOT 5702E-100000 AT is> <3933DFC3 DOT D8C10F5C AT cyberoptics DOT com> |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:31 -0500 > From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com> > > I took a look at this over the weekend. For div.c, inline assembly code was > no more efficient that the code I got from the C code I submitted earlier, so > it appears that nothing would really be gained by going to inline assembly. I was mainly thinking about avoiding the function call overhead, including the stack adjustment (which is very tedious in recent versions of GCC). Did you include that in your comparisons?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |