Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO

Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM

To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
From: Milan Mimica <milan.mimica@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:05:02 +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=PcadfGpGQYn0SvruJf/e9otlWwqrJ60Tojpu/2LvXeSxGv32j58RDOF8Bw2moz3ELCYbyxyfu+41AgbgTVVB/8e8i8777FcBF1t5IJzXBK55F4knaR25RJmUo2nevxaiizymSemJ7m5DwvjIgWkVHqgl1KtW0WTU0r9smuVy6uA=

Elias Pschernig wrote:


About benchmarking, I think there was a lot of benchmarking on
allegro.cc about a year ago, and non-asm clearly won.

Maybe it won globaly, but I'd bet there were some functions that werefatser with ASM, at least on some CPUs.



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

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
- Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Milan Mimica
- Re: [AD] ALLEGRO_USE_C vs ALLEGRO_NO_ASM
  - From: Elias Pschernig

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+