DOS ain't dead - C vs. ASM (size vs speed)

C vs. ASM (size vs speed) (Developers)

posted by Rugxulo , Usono, 07.04.2009, 00:27

> > > You could argue that writing stuff in C is better, then :-D
> >
> > No way! What you save in source size is lost in .EXE size.
>
> I'd actually forked DOS-C if I intended writing stuff in C.

I don't prefer C, in fact I think it's overkill sometimes.

> > Ideally, mix and match C + ASM for best results either way.
>
> Nah, I prefer writing ASM only. What you save in the .EXE size you lose in
> time, but who cares how long it takes, anyway? It's not like I'm doing it
> for money.

I always find I'm fighting against the compiler. It's no faster from my experience, esp. when compilers are so much slower than assemblers. After all the "but compilers are so smart and computers are so fast", then why the hell does it (allegedly) take 24 hours to build Firefox??? :confused: (And to dispel another myth: if GCC is always better than assembly optimization, then why is GCC compiled by itself so slow??)

Post reply

Complete thread:

GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Rugxulo, 01.04.2009, 20:46 (Developers)
- GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - marcov, 01.04.2009, 23:28
  - GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Rugxulo, 02.04.2009, 00:20
    - GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Dennis, 04.04.2009, 18:38
      - GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Rugxulo, 04.04.2009, 20:10
        GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Dennis, 04.04.2009, 22:23
        GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Rugxulo, 05.04.2009, 23:47
        GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Dennis, 06.04.2009, 01:25
        65536 byte text files - ecm, 06.04.2009, 19:23
        65536 byte text files - Rugxulo, 07.04.2009, 00:01
        65536 byte text files - ecm, 07.04.2009, 00:14
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 07.04.2009, 00:27
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 07.04.2009, 13:20
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 07.04.2009, 13:35
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 08.04.2009, 10:33
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 08.04.2009, 19:24
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - RayeR, 08.04.2009, 21:09
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - rr, 08.04.2009, 21:16
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - EZGCC for v2 - Rugxulo, 09.04.2009, 01:11
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - EZGCC for v2 - RayeR, 09.04.2009, 23:15
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - EZGCC for v2 - Rugxulo, 10.04.2009, 05:02
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - EZGCC for v2 - RayeR, 10.04.2009, 14:05
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 08.04.2009, 21:44
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 09.04.2009, 00:55
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 09.04.2009, 09:09
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 09.04.2009, 14:14
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 09.04.2009, 21:17
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - Rugxulo, 09.04.2009, 21:38
        C vs. ASM (size vs speed) - marcov, 10.04.2009, 10:16
        EZ-GCC v2 for 386 (1.2 MB 5.25" FD) - Rugxulo, 16.04.2009, 18:38
        EZ-GCC v2 for 386, GNU Emacs 23.0.95 pretest - Rugxulo, 05.07.2009, 21:22
        GNU Emacs 23.0.96 pretest (last one!) - Rugxulo, 16.07.2009, 06:07
        GNU Emacs 23.1 - Rugxulo, 11.09.2009, 06:54
        GNU Emacs for DJGPP (22.3 or 23.0.92) - Rugxulo, 07.04.2009, 00:00
- GNU Emacs 23.0.92 pretest (DJGPP) - Rugxulo, 04.04.2009, 20:38
- GNU Emacs for DJGPP (23.0.92 "pretest") - Rugxulo, 09.04.2009, 21:40