Date:	Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:30:53 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <evilgrendel AT gmx DOT net>
X-Sender:	root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Fastest bitblt?
In-Reply-To:	<fqfubsc9f6pcgd2vjt2adj7l3eaokf6b0a@4ax.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10003031823500.948-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Damian Yerrick wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:34:47 +0600 (LKT), Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel
> <kalum AT crosswinds DOT net> wrote:
> 
> >but nearptrs would result in the least number of insn
> >and the fastest code.
> 
> Show us the benchmarks (farpoke*() vs. nearptr).

Yes, it really would be appreciated if anyone could display the
bacnchmarks which say that there isn't much of a slow down when using
farptrs.


> 
> C++ can do operator overloading, which converts farpokel() into
> an array access.

What about the poor guys (a lot of people BTW, just see how much of the
source out there is C) who program in C.

BTW I love C++ but sometimes I get the feeling when I read statements like
the above that it is more a toolkit which you can use to "patch up"
various problematic designs (BTW I'm _not_ referring to DJGPP) rather than
a programming language.

> 
> OK.  I'll give up pushing movedata().  Can anyone show me a
> non-trivial example where farpoke*() is significantly slower
> than a nearptr access?  S h o w   m e   t h e   s o u r c e .

I'll try writing  my own program and verify this.

Grendel

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

- Raw text -