From: "Alexei A. Frounze" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:57:48 +0400 Organization: MTU-Intel ISP Lines: 32 Message-ID: <38FDD77C.34F9E065@mtu-net.ru> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp103-64.dialup.mtu-net.ru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gavrilo.mtu.ru 956163956 29012 212.188.103.64 (19 Apr 2000 17:05:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse AT mtu DOT ru NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2000 17:05:56 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,ru To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote: > > > Cyrix 6x86. > > Originally it was P266, but something burnt out and now it doesn't work on > > frequencies higher than 133MHz anymore. IMHO a good CPU > > It's not a question of ``good'' or ``bad''. Cyrix is different from > K6. In particular, K6 is known to write to memory very fast, but read > much slower (or the other way around, I don't remember). It's also > much more sensitive to alignment of data and code. I simply told that in order to mention that it's not a Ciryx 6x86 P266 and Cyrix P133. It's something new now. :) > Since you asked what might be the cause of different behavior of the > same code, I was suggesting that one of the differences between > processors is the reason for the different effects of changes in code > on performance. So then the division trick is better for most of the CPUs, since the inline ASM with this division doesn't make the code noticable slow. It makes it faster. My computer/CPU is the example. bye. Alexei A. Frounze ----------------------------------------- Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru Mirror: http://members.xoom.com/alexfru