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