To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Intel ASM to AT&T ASM question
Message-ID: <19970106.200214.4975.2.chambersb@juno.com>
References: <01b9b9ca$9cccd040$aaf15ecf AT platko DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <5arf5r$lqn AT agate DOT berkeley DOT edu>
	<32D192D7 DOT 4511 AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
From: chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:56:41 EST


On Mon, 06 Jan 1997 16:03:35 -0800 Dan Mintz <danmintz AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
writes:

>> Here I go into tirade mode.  Not directed at you, but more toward
Please don't.  You stop thinking clearly when you do.

>> programming book writers in general.  The big problem is that they
>> make novices think that a compiler is incapable of optimizing 
>something
>> as simple as a putpixel routine.  There is no reason to resort
It is.  As I recall, the code was written for Borland C (though I haven't
seen the book in a while...)

>> Run GCC on that and look at the output.  Compare it to the above.  
>GCC's
>> output is better!  (Using mul to multiply by a constant!  Get real!)
Of course it is.  I have yet to see a compiler that really stacks up to
gcc - this doesn't need pointing out :)

>> "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus,"  heh.  More like "Tricks of 
>the
>> Writers Who Don't Know Anything About Programming."
Wrong - if people would bother _reading_ the book, they would see that
the whole point was to give a firm understanding of a simple method.  The
above was used to show how to simply put a pixel, and then an example
translation into assembly.  I believe it was somewhere around chapter 20
or 21 (although I'm not quite sure) where they discuss quite a few good
optimization techniques.