Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO

Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]

To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
From: Milan Mimica <milan.mimica@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:36:43 +0200
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Xn56Eox9Rb1LxI9srow1ds/7ZWMAsc3zt49Mv7rQkX8ii50ybP2lpLjcw8TxanxozBAG4m58Cm8uqEwRQ15CArVXgpyAT3kYdyFOPmGoSIH9EJskbABz5+9prc7P3LMzC0dhA7WSnCXqiMtMGufQ63eEGycStMzOwPrey0G7g3w=

Elias Pschernig wrote:


And I also just noticed again in the test program that the non-asm
version is between 10% and 100% (!) faster in the draw_sprite tests for
my old pentium 4 here, so I propose to change the default ./configure
result to always disable asm, and give Allegro some speed up under unix
that way, the X11 port can need it :)


It would break ABI compatibility.

There are some functions that benefit from ASM code. I don't knowexactly which one (some memory bitmaps rotation/stretching I think), Ijust noticed it while profiling my game. This things really need to bebenchmarked.



--
Milan Mimica
http://sparklet.sf.net

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Elias Pschernig

References:
- [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Elias Pschernig
- Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Peter Hull
- Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Elias Pschernig

Messages sorted by: [ date | thread ]
Prev by Date: Re: [AD] Re: linux compile fix
Next by Date: Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
Previous by thread: Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
Next by thread: Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+

http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/