| ??? 05/07/08 09:53 Read: times Msg Score: +1 +1 Good Answer/Helpful |
#154530 - Getting the least out of your compiler Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Oliver Sedlacek said:
In the past, compilers optimisation wasn't terribly good, but this is an area where progress is continuous In fact, some (many?) of the "traditional" C source "optimisations" can be counter-productive with a modern optimising compiler - see the famous "Getting the Least Out of Your C Compiler" article: http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=139366 |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| "Real C" vs '51 C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is nothing wrong except... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you are not , why are you even here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| *(buffer+8+index)? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| none of the above | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK then how? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| like this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but it's basically the same... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| YCMV | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| assumptions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Re: assumptions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I took a \'known\' example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler-independent efficient C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a clarification and an example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two kinds of "efficiency" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler smarter than coder | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Getting the least out of your compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Real C is inherently reentrant | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
which, even when possible, often is ill advised | 01/01/70 00:00 |