Re: Note to Chuck Crayne
- From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 14:19:16 -0500
Must be a matter of taste, i thought it was finished when the C++ junk started.
Well, I guess it quit being "on topic" at that point. I think it's "interesting" that if you:
1) know machine/assembly language, so you know what code you want to produce, and...
2) know exactly what output your compiler will produce from a given input,
you can produce HLL code that's "as good as" (identical to) what you'd produce by any other means. Those of us who are smart/stubborn/crazy enough to use asm can skip step two and "cut out the middle man"...
I am more than happy to help out a guy after some assembler code
Yes, and we (most of us) thank you for it!
but the waffle that followed did not have much content.
True. Caused me to make an interesting observation, though... If *you* optimize strlen to shave one cycle off it, and you distribute your library to 1000 users, and they each write a program that uses strlen 1000 times, and distribute it to 1000 end-users, and they each run it 1000 times... that's a hell of a lot of cycles!
If *I* optimize strlen... all I get is the one cycle.
As usual, "what are you going to do with it" determines what's "good" or "worthwhile".
You worried that someone's going to adopt Betov's strlen? :)
Only if we are really lucky. :)
There must be "even worse" in common usage. As you know, I like "open sauce" software, so if I felt like plowing through the C source, I cou;d find a real gem for us to optimize. When I click on the little hieroglyph to "sort by thread" instead of "sort by date", it takes - by wall clock - approximately a minute and fifteen seconds to complete. What kind of a sort algo does *that*???
"Optimizing strlen" is not going to solve this type of problem, but getting rid of the "it doesn't matter" attitude might...
P.S. I saved your posts on "qsort" - haven't played with 'em yet... .
- Prev by Date: Re: Note to Chuck Crayne
- Next by Date: Re: Note to Chuck Crayne
- Previous by thread: Re: Note to Chuck Crayne
- Next by thread: Re: Note to Chuck Crayne