X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Message-ID: <19980719220837.31689@cerebro.laendle> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 22:08:37 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl Subject: Re: PGCC's optimizations (continued) Mail-Followup-To: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19980718015819 DOT 00994ca0 AT xs4all DOT nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980718015819.00994ca0@xs4all.nl>; from Vincent Diepeveen on Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 02:00:15AM +0100 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.109 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.50 19980714 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental)) Status: RO Content-Length: 1423 Lines: 35 On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 02:00:15AM +0100, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >This is quite interesting... are you sure that you compile these programs in > >C mode as opposed to mcirosofts combined c-c++ thing? In C, there are many > >clearly defined type conversions which need an explicit cast in C++. > > all c code, and initially you don't notice the casting problems. No, I meant did you compile the C program in your compilers "C mode" or "C++ mode", as these are two different languages, and C++ is much pickier about casts. (There are other bad things in c++ as well ;) > In fact it usually works ok. But i'm having masses of pointer structures > and speedy things. I'll do anything to get faster, as long as i get > lossless faster. but casts don't impove the execution speed in any way. > Most chessprograms engines are therefore in assembler. > > Mine isn't. > > Yet i have learnt a lot about C programming. > And how well/bad compilers are. ;) [the rest I will look at later] -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |