Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:54:45 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net To: "Alexei A. Frounze" cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem In-Reply-To: <38FB7858.41B090DB@mtu-net.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote: > 1. You simply proved that GCC has an optimizer efficient enough. Okay, I agree. > Your code that works 2 FPS fater for you works the same for me as before. I > think it doesn't mean faster than mine (just 2.9%). Yes but this proved that the C compiler is almost as *good* if not *better* than "hand sloptimised" code and all the pain that goes into creating it. Which is what a number of people have been trying to tell you over the past few threads, but you wouldn't belive it and here you got the proof. > So, we have a good optimizer and you proved this. Great. I'm glad. > This means I can throw away a lot of inline ASM now. Yes, so you can code most of your routines in C and then run the profiler and find out the problem areas and *then* decide what to write and whether writing in assembly is worth the pain... > Seems that this is a story that can teach everyone (me=best example). :)) Yes...To listen a bit more to other people's opinions hopefully .. Most people who share there opinions on this forum are quite knowledgable and speak with a lot of programming experience. It would be unwise to ignore that advice nomatter how different it might be to your beliefs. Grendel Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)