Re: while ();
- From: Chewy509@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Jan 2006 17:30:49 -0800
\\\o///annabee wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robert and Randy,
> >
> > Thanks for the input... I've updated the compiler to generate the test
> > at the bottom, rather than at the top.
>
> Imo, what you should do is to do nothing.
> (Scrap your compiler as well).
Hi Bumble-bee,
Thanks for the encouragement to self improve (yes I'm being sarcastic),
and thanks for the UNWANTED ROSASM SPAM!
Seriously, I had a genuine question about optimisation and all I got
from you was an advertisement for a product which DOES NOT SUIT MY
NEEDS. If you took a second and used GOOGLE or had a memory span of
greater than 6months, you've found/known that I'm developing a machine
dependent langauge and compiler targetted at Operating System
Development. Besides the FACT that I rarely use Windows at all, except
just for the occasion game to relax or to test the compiler, Rosasm is
not a product that I could use or even choose to use given the other
assemblers which are available to me.
PS. I use FASM for my assembly work...
PPS. Back on topic, I found gcc 3.4.3 (at least when targeting x86_64)
generates the test at the start, with a jmp at the end, opposite to
what both Robert and Randy has advised... However rereading the Intel
manuals on optimisation, it's clear that both Robert's and Randy's
suggestion will provide the superior code in most general case
instances.
--
Darran (aka Chewy509) brought to you by Google Groups!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: while ();
- From: \\\\\\o///annabee
- Re: while ();
- References:
- Re: while ();
- From: \\\\\\o///annabee
- Re: while ();
- Prev by Date: Re: LOL and behold
- Next by Date: Re: DPMA Presentation
- Previous by thread: Re: while ();
- Next by thread: Re: while ();
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|