Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!nsta!instable!amos
From: amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Assembly language and Speed...
Message-ID: <652@instable.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Dec-86 04:29:28 EST
Article-I.D.: instable.652
Posted: Fri Dec 19 04:29:28 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 00:28:40 EST
References: <1233@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: amos%nsta@nsc (Amos Shapir)
Organization: National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd.
Lines: 26
Summary: Anything you can do, C can do better

In article <1233@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> billw@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (William E. Westfield) writes:
>... I'd like to argue against the idea that HLL code
>is only a "little bit" slower than assembly code.
>
> [describing a complicated way to do stack ops in PASCAL subroutines,
  and the compliacted code that is generated]

What makes you think that a *good* optimizing compilers can't unroll
function calls, put them in-line, and optimize them to a point that comes
very close to the intended machine instruction? Any logic that you can put
into the programming process, can be translated to an algorithm and
done by tne compiler. It only takes a lot of CPU power and memory (in
compile time only!) and these become cheaper all the time.
(I know most of you still cant use such compilers, but they also
become cheaper and more available - no flames on that, please)

>BillW, writing small, fast, programs, in assembler, and happy.
Amos Shapir, writing small, fast, programs, in C, and happy - much happier
than I'd be if I had to write them in assembler!


-- 
	Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
(011-972) 52-522261  amos%nsta@nsc 34.48'E 32.10'N