Path: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef!cks From: cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: C vs. Assembler Message-ID: <1988Jun22.190630.4151@ziebmef.uucp> Date: 22 Jun 88 23:06:27 GMT References: <2008@ssc-vax.UUCP> Reply-To: cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann) Organization: Ziebmef Public Access BBS/Unix Lines: 22 In article <2008@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes: ... >............... Sure, there are some assembly gurus out there who >could take the assembly output by a C compiler, and optomize it for >more speed, but I think our current compilers on the Amiga are good >enough so that the gains made by optomization of the assembly are >rarely justifiable, and/or rarely make a significant difference in speed. Unfortunately, Aztec C usually produces noticeably sub-optimal code, as did old version of Lattice (I haven't seen the output of Lattice 4.0; anyone care to comment on its code quality?). Atzec C is a good base-level optimizing compiler; it gets most of the basic optimizations like common subexpression elimination (I won't call constant folding an 'optimization'; I call compilers without it 'brain-damaged' instead), but compared to GNU C or Greenhills C it has a long way to go. -- But he said leave me alone I'm a family man And my bark is much worse than my bite Chris Siebenmann uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks