Re: Unsigned Long Long
Re: Unsigned Long Long
- Subject: Re: Unsigned Long Long
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:57:16 +0200
Sherm,
On 13.5.2004, at 16:05, Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
The opposite is not true however - If I were to assume an optimizing
>
compiler that produces bit-shifting instructions from /, then I'd have
>
to test that assumption every time I switched to a different compiler,
>
because one for which my assumption were false would produce
>
sub-optimal code.
Do you really suggest this kind of optimization is worth thinking of?
Jeez.
Man, don't pull our legs. In an extremely vast majority (my estimate is
99.999%) of code this kind of differences makes a *completely*
negligible gain, not worth even the half-second of thinking needed to
realize that a shift can be used indeed. In the remaining 0.001% of a
code for which each saved microsecond is paramount, you need to rewrite
bottlenecks in an assembler anyway.
---
Ondra Hada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc
[demime 0.98b removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.