Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/04/19/15:00:24

From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:57:48 +0400
Organization: MTU-Intel ISP
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000419094240 DOT 10023G-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: 956163956 29012 (19 Apr 2000 17:05:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2000 17:05:56 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,ru
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> > Cyrix 6x86.
> > Originally it was P266, but something burnt out and now it doesn't work on
> > frequencies higher than 133MHz anymore. IMHO a good CPU
> It's not a question of ``good'' or ``bad''.  Cyrix is different from
> K6.  In particular, K6 is known to write to memory very fast, but read
> much slower (or the other way around, I don't remember).  It's also
> much more sensitive to alignment of data and code.

I simply told that in order to mention that it's not a Ciryx 6x86 P266 and Cyrix
P133. It's something new now. :)

> Since you asked what might be the cause of different behavior of the
> same code, I was suggesting that one of the differences between
> processors is the reason for the different effects of changes in code
> on performance.

So then the division trick is better for most of the CPUs, since the inline ASM
with this division doesn't make the code noticable slow. It makes it faster. My
computer/CPU is the example.

Alexei A. Frounze

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019