Message-ID: <3610272A.E54C23F7@mailexcite.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:17:47 -0400
From: Doug Gale <dgale AT mailexcite DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Optimizations
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980923191310 DOT 2968I-100000 AT is> <360996D2 DOT 382F AT erols DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: liv4-44.oshawa.idirect.com
Organization: "Usenet User"
Lines: 20
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

John S. Fine wrote:

> I don't think I have time to install and test yet another compiler
> unless there is strong reason to expect improvement.  Remember that
> I am optimizing for a 486 with slow dram and no L2 cache.  That is
> a world away from the focus of new optimizers.  The redundant moves
> that GCC makes are bad code on all platforms, but I would guess that
> EGCS developers have focused on other aspects of optimizing, that
> wouldn't apply to my target platform.

What are you making that requires such extreme performance that you are willing
to sift through the assembler and make sure it sqeezes every drop of speed from
the machine? If your application is SO performance sensitive, why target it for
a junky old 486 with no L2 cache? :)

Besides, algorithmic optimizations will always make a bigger improvement than
low-level optimizations anyway. As the old saying goes: the fastest instruction
is the one you never execute!