Message-Id: <m0yAuTo-000S2rC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: "Adrian Francis" <adrian DOT francis AT cableinet DOT co DOT uk>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:36:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: pointers
In-reply-to: <01bd48fb$e44a2ee0$b09175c2@ctx>
Precedence: bulk

"Adrian Francis" <adrian DOT francis AT cableinet DOT co DOT uk> wrote:

> Are near pointers slower than far pointers?  Seems like that to me, or
> maybe I have another problem in my code.

No. Be sure that you aren't enabling/disabling near pointers inside a loop. For 
transfers of 300 bytes they are almost the same speed. For tranfers of one byte 
to 4 bytes you could get a better performance from nearpointers.

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013