Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:30:53 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Fastest bitblt? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Damian Yerrick wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:34:47 +0600 (LKT), Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel > wrote: > > >but nearptrs would result in the least number of insn > >and the fastest code. > > Show us the benchmarks (farpoke*() vs. nearptr). Yes, it really would be appreciated if anyone could display the bacnchmarks which say that there isn't much of a slow down when using farptrs. > > C++ can do operator overloading, which converts farpokel() into > an array access. What about the poor guys (a lot of people BTW, just see how much of the source out there is C) who program in C. BTW I love C++ but sometimes I get the feeling when I read statements like the above that it is more a toolkit which you can use to "patch up" various problematic designs (BTW I'm _not_ referring to DJGPP) rather than a programming language. > > OK. I'll give up pushing movedata(). Can anyone show me a > non-trivial example where farpoke*() is significantly slower > than a nearptr access? S h o w m e t h e s o u r c e . I'll try writing my own program and verify this. Grendel Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)