Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30
From: wolfgang kern (nowhere_at_nevernet.at)
Date: 06/02/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Linux syscalls"
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:20:34 +0200
"Betov" answered "C":
[about assembler benchmarks..]
I actually don't care much about compiling speed,
it depends more on the programming style than on
'smartness' of the compiler.
A verbose written source with many equates, macros,
and other HLL-styled (programmers convenient only) stuff,
will take more time to convert anyway.
And even if an >4MB PE may need 30 seconds for compilation,
I'd be more aware of the speed/size performance of the produced file.
My way of coding is simple: no macros, almost no equates and I'll
keep data-label count short by using offsets to address struct-items.
So it will be almost impossible to compare compiling speed
on different assemblers if not using identical source.
__
wolfgang
- Next message: Beth: "Re: Linux syscalls"
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.07 : 2004-05-30"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|