Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- From: Betov <betov@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2005 19:59:38 GMT
randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx écrivait news:1114630200.007806.283530
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Betov wrote:
>> >
>
>> I do not think we have any user with an IQ low enough
>> for not writing:
>>
>> [a:B$ 1
>> b:B$ 2]
>>
>
> Irrelevant.
> The default alignment should still be *byte*, not dword. The fact that
> you have to use *special* syntax to achieve this is the non-intuitive
> part.
As long as you had been stupid enough for talking
of Data _re-arranging_, and not of simple Data
Alignments,... what are you barking at?
:)
As for RosAsm Data Alignement, it so much "non-intuitive",
that, mind you, most of users do not even care of it, and
i suppose that many of them do not even _know_ of it. So,
if the default was 1, that is no alignment at all, their
App would be slower, with, in most case, no difference at
all in the File Size, because of the 0200 Alignment of
Sections.
:)
Betov.
< http://rosasm.org >
.
- References:
- Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- From: randyhyde
- Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- From: Betov
- Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- From: randyhyde
- Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- Prev by Date: Re: RosAsm injects extra bytes into your data
- Next by Date: Re: RosAsm injects extra bytes into your data
- Previous by thread: Re: Optimizing Static Variable Layout
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
