Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM
Ummm....No they cant =P Note that C is a "High Level" language and that Asm
is a "Low Level" language =P You'd have to modify your C program ALOT w/
bits of asm code to make it run as fast. I'm not talking about on the
computer because computers are fast enough either way not to really show
much difference. The fact is that Asm programs are faster then those coded
in C (if the asm programmer knows what he's doing =)
-'FuZeD
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM
>
>You are both correct and incorrect. C can be just as fast as ASM provided
>1) the compiler is efficient
>2) the programmer _knows_ the compiler and all it's faults
>
>A real programmer understands where the compiler will make slow or
inefficient
>code, and shore it up with ASM as necessary - or modify the compiler.
>
>Please note that GCC is a very good compiler. It has been modified many
many
>times in order to make it very efficient. The nice thing is the source
code is
>open so if you see where it generates bloated code, you can adjust it to
make
>tighter code.
>
>C programs, properly coded (without any asm) can and do run as fast as
programs
>made completely in asm.
>
>-Adam
>
>root wrote:
>>
>> Ok, lets see here. Might I remind you that the C programs would run
>> noticably slower then those in pure asm =) I think that C is great and
all
>> but normally C programs are more bloated and slow then asm proggies. I
>> doubt SMQ would even be possible (at its speed) in C =)
>>
>> -}InFuZeD{
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Jeff Tyrrill wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Maybe not yet, but when TI's SDK for the 89 and 92+ are released,
nobody
>> > will use ASM anymore (unless they charge for the SDK), because it will
make
>> > it really easy to use C. Also, 89 and 92+ are very compatible, even
with ASM
>> > (right?), but especially with C, so one list would probably work for
both
>> > calcs.
>
Follow-Ups: