Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!mark
From: mark@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C "neatener" - another example (#9)
Message-ID: <5474@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Feb-84 23:51:09 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5474
Posted: Sun Feb 26 23:51:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Feb-84 13:47:42 EST
References: <212@mi-cec.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 14

Ok.  I already sent one mild flame objecting to the "mad neatener",
and trying to quietly argue that C doesn't do nearly so bad a job
as to be called a neatener.  But now, claiming that bliss is
better because it uses 3 clrl's where C uses one and two movl's
is just plain wrong.  On my vax, movl's are faster than clrl's.
(780 with no FPA.)  Not much faster, but enough so that a little
loop doing a million of them does a little better than a little
loop doing a million clrl's, time and time again.

So bliss does it wrong.
-- 
Mark Weiser 		
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs 	ARPA:	mark@maryland