From: Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: floating point is... fast???
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:08:47 -0800
Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <32E1C87F.1655@cam.org>
References: <5brd2e$dap AT lyra DOT csx DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamicppp-240.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

G.P. Tootell wrote:
> 
> while using the profiler on some code i had written i noticed that changing a
> floating point multiply to an unsigned multiply of 2 longs turned out to be
> slower. in fact floating point multiply appears to be faster than ordinary
> integer multiply for any case. is this actually true? and if so is there any
> reason i shouldn't just change every multiply in my code to make sure it's
> floating point?
> 
> i don't have my big book of cycles on me so i have no idea how many cycles a fmul
> is sadly.
I don't know about integers but I know that floating point is faster
than fixed point on high end machines like a pentium.But since AFAIK a
fixed point is treated as an int, I guess,yes,they're faster.
-- 
tudor 'at' cam 'dot' org
yoda69 'at' hotmail 'dot' com
http://www.cam.org/~tudor

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-(--) s(-):(+) a? C+ UL>++++ P L>+++++ E- W++ N o K---(----) w---
O---- M-- V-? PS+++ PE Y PGP t+ 5-- X+++>++++ R tv b+ DI D+ G e->++
h>++ r- y>+++++ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------