Message-Id: <200005301754.UAA08549@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:52:58 +0200
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3933DFC3.D8C10F5C@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:31 -0500)
Subject: Re: Bug 314
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000523144730 DOT 5702E-100000 AT is> <3933DFC3 DOT D8C10F5C AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:31 -0500
> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> 
> I took a look at this over the weekend.  For div.c, inline assembly code was
> no more efficient that the code I got from the C code I submitted earlier, so
> it appears that nothing would really be gained by going to inline assembly.

I was mainly thinking about avoiding the function call overhead,
including the stack adjustment (which is very tedious in recent
versions of GCC).  Did you include that in your comparisons?