Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/10/23/21:46:22
From: | Ludvig Larsson <ludvig AT club-internet DOT fr>
|
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
Subject: | Re: Fastest Method of Virtual Buffer->Video Memory?
|
Date: | Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:11:43 +0200
|
Organization: | Faas-Goldhart
|
Lines: | 21
|
Message-ID: | <3631375F.2328@club-internet.fr>
|
References: | <3631349E DOT B70621ED AT geocities DOT com>
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: | toulouse-camichel8-72.club-internet.fr
|
Mime-Version: | 1.0
|
X-Trace: | front4.grolier.fr 909196719 5138 195.36.147.72 (24 Oct 1998 02:38:39 GMT)
|
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 24 Oct 1998 02:38:39 GMT
|
X-Mailer: | Mozilla 3.01C-CLUB (Win95; I)
|
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
Consider using movedata or _movedatal, AFAIK, with optimisations turned
on(-O2) they will be translated to a
REP
STOSL
wich moves 4 bytes a time(if you want to move a number of bytes not
dividable by 4, use movedata, it will arrange things).
Also, copy from aligned a mempos, malloc returns aligned memory(adress
dividable by 4 I think), so don't do this:
buff=malloc(.....
move(buf+1,nr_of_bytes...
It will slow things down.
Otherwise, the transferspeed is due to memory speed and video-memory
speed, as a normal screen-buffer won't enter the cache(and won't be
there when you start to transfer probably anyway), the processorspeed is
not that important.
Hth
Ludvig Larsson
- Raw text -