Message-ID:	<32A2270E.679B@gbrmpa.gov.au>
Date:	Mon, 02 Dec 1996 08:56:32 +0800
From:	Leath Muller <leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
Reply-To:	leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au
Organization:	Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Glen Miner <gminer AT Newbridge DOT COM>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Optimization
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 90 DOT 961129072251 DOT 3669A-100000 AT coop10>

> > Hmmm...I would think that if about 20 people told me one thing, and I
> > was the only person considering the other, that I would be wrong... ;)
 
> <grin> I just figgured that because nobody was able to justify what they
> were saying I should press on :)

Heh heh... :)  I guess I am the same...
 
> > Now, here's the difference: if your accessing 32 bit data, and its in
> > the cache, you get it for free (ie: 0 cycles), if you access 16 bit
> > data, you have a size prefix (1 cycle).
 
> I have been able to confirm that a size override for word sized data does
> in fact cause a 1 cycle stall on Pentiums... (I went and looked it up) :)

Or more... :|
 
> But (not that you were disputing this), this is a quote from the intel
> web site:
 
> The final story: avoid short ints, regular ints are just peachy, and keep
> on trucking with those chars.
 
> Have I got this clear?

Crystal... :)

Leathal.

- Raw text -