Saying that "... sub-optimizing of this sort is, I think, evidence of a pervasive malaise..." is a short sighted generalization.
Performance is one of the strongest reasons for coding in assembler and this discussion characterizes some of the low hanging fruit available for the attainment thereof. The timing differences can be quite significant when the code in question is embedded in a routine that is executed 100 billion times. Kerry Tenberg Austin, Tx On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:23 PM, John Gilmore <johnwgilmore0...@gmail.com>wrote: > My own experience has been much more mixed, but I'd like to accept, in > order to address what I take to be a more important issue, that Peter > Farley is right when he says > > <begin snippet> > My prior experiences in replacing MVCL/CLCL's with multiple MVC/CLC's > and even MVC/CLC loops for "small" areas (FSVO "small") is that > MVCL/CLCL loses almost every time. > </end snippet> > > Preoccupation with these issues is, at best, counter-productive. The > MVCLE is logically simpler and should be used unless one knows that > one has only some fixed, small number n << 256 bytes to move. > > No one has ever claimed that the timing differences here are large, > significant ones; and the continuing preoccupation here with > suboptimizing of this sort is, I think, evidence of a pervasive > malaise, a retreat into the familiar that precludes consideration of > more, much more, important design issues. > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >
