From: frabb AT worldaccess DOT nl Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Antw: Re: doubles vs. floats Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 11:14:49 GMT Organization: World Access Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <199701292356 DOT SAA28049 AT delorie DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: grn1-6.worldaccess.nl To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp frabb AT worldaccess DOT nl wrote: > > #define noTYPE float /* 150 ticks (40) */ > #define noTYPE double /* 170 ticks (40) */ > #define TYPE long double /* 195 ticks (46) */ > > > The three lines specifying TYPE as float, double or long double also contain > the number of clockticks used by the program. It appears that float is faster > than double is faster than long double. The program is compiled using RHIDE. > What worries me even more is the number between ( ), this is obtained by > compiling the program with TC... Dear Frank, you should have a look at the CLOCKS_PER_SEC definition, which is 5x18.2 in gcc, instead of 18.2 in tc. That makes the gcc version a lot faster than the tc version. It does not change the problem of float being the fastest! Frank.