From:	Fabrice ILPONSE <fabrice AT trash DOT lip6 DOT fr>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Pointer to ... and a question
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:03:32 +0100
Organization:	Universites Paris VI/Paris VII - France
Lines:	31
Message-ID:	<347D6FA4.4199@trash.lip6.fr>
References:	<3477ACD7 DOT 29CFC486 AT polymtl DOT ca> <347C6C94 DOT 3963 AT mail DOT telepac DOT pt> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT iB1 DOT 0 DOT 971127025546 DOT 27430G-100000 AT vtn1>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	asim.lip6.fr
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

William A. Barath wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Paulo Marques wrote:
> On more than one occasion I have written C and ASM code and compared
> operation (writing the C after the ASM, hoping as I did for TPC that the
> compiler would make similar coding choices to what I would have) and
> almost every time GCC has produced code that ran faster- even when the
> code was larger or apparently less efficient!  So I can only assume that
> the compiler knows more about the machine organization than I do and is
> capitalizing on that.

	I think it depends which kind of program you've written the code for!!

	For me, for a polygone routine, my assembly code was faster and I,ve
only traduce (with some optimization of mine) the C code that was even
optimized!!

	PS: the C code was compiled with -O2 -s -m486

-----------

I've heard that the -O3 option was "buggy". As the problem's been fixed?

-- 
	^ ^ ^
	| | |
	+-+-+	Fabrice ILPONSE
	  |	<fabrice AT asim DOT lip6 DOT fr>
	  |
	  |
	  -

- Raw text -