Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 06:34:14 +0600 (LKT)
From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender: kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Voodoo optimization?
In-Reply-To: <20000706232832.25697.00001192@ng-bh1.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007080632140.1698-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 7 Jul 2000, The awesome and feared S. T. L. commented thusly,

> 
> <<Sometimes(often?), unroling loops,and inlining functions can be slower on
> 586,686 architectures due to the cache overflows etc...>>
> 
> Apparently, inlining functions doesn't have an effect on the BladeEnc code,
> while unrolling loops greatly benefits it.

I think that the reason that the inlining did not work is more rather due
to the CPU (P III) you are running on rather than the code per se.

Inlining seems to slow things down on 586 and > .

Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)