From: Fabrice ILPONSE <fabrice AT trash DOT lip6 DOT fr>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Pointer to ... and a question
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:03:32 +0100
Organization: Universites Paris VI/Paris VII - France
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <347D6FA4.4199@trash.lip6.fr>
References: <3477ACD7 DOT 29CFC486 AT polymtl DOT ca> <347C6C94 DOT 3963 AT mail DOT telepac DOT pt> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT iB1 DOT 0 DOT 971127025546 DOT 27430G-100000 AT vtn1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: asim.lip6.fr
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
Precedence: bulk

William A. Barath wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Paulo Marques wrote:
> On more than one occasion I have written C and ASM code and compared
> operation (writing the C after the ASM, hoping as I did for TPC that the
> compiler would make similar coding choices to what I would have) and
> almost every time GCC has produced code that ran faster- even when the
> code was larger or apparently less efficient!  So I can only assume that
> the compiler knows more about the machine organization than I do and is
> capitalizing on that.

	I think it depends which kind of program you've written the code for!!

	For me, for a polygone routine, my assembly code was faster and I,ve
only traduce (with some optimization of mine) the C code that was even
optimized!!

	PS: the C code was compiled with -O2 -s -m486

-----------

I've heard that the -O3 option was "buggy". As the problem's been fixed?

-- 
	^ ^ ^
	| | |
	+-+-+	Fabrice ILPONSE
	  |	<fabrice AT asim DOT lip6 DOT fr>
	  |
	  |
	  -