From:	dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
Date:	Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:27:15 GMT
Organization:	always disorganized
Lines:	15
Message-ID:	<38f6d661.1644454@news.freeserve.net>
References:	<38F20E7A DOT 3330E9A4 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <38F23A21 DOT A59621A1 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <38F49A45 DOT 13F0AB1 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8d4ca1 DOT 3vvqqup DOT 0 AT buerssner-17104 DOT user DOT cis DOT dfn DOT de> <38F60DB3 DOT E355975 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8d5ljq DOT 3vvqipv DOT 0 AT buerssner-17104 DOT user DOT cis DOT dfn DOT de> <38F6A29B DOT 3AAEC0E AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-166.ohio.dialup.pol.co.uk
X-Trace:	news6.svr.pol.co.uk 955700836 30143 62.137.86.166 (14 Apr 2000 08:27:16 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	14 Apr 2000 08:27:16 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader:	Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

>Not really. Actually, my ASM code improves the performance greatly.

Well, of course your asm is faster than unoptimized gcc output - as I said
before, unoptimized gcc output is terrible.  You should be comparing with
optimized gcc output.

>And I can't
>copmare ASM vs optimized plain C because GCC/AS doesn't compile the source with
>-O2 switch.

It would do if you wrote it correctly.

S.

- Raw text -