On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Tim Matthews <tim.matthe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Baxter wrote: >> >> So is it any slower now with things not in ASM? >> >> --bb >> > > You are not serious are you? The linker not the linked? > > If it's functionally more correct, easier to understand and easier to > implement link time optimizations then how can anyone justify asm to c > transition (where asm is not required) as a disadvantage?
Walter often defends sticking with OPTLINK because it is fast. And the implication is that it is fast in part because it's all in hand-coded ASM. I was merely curious if that was holding up or not, or if in fact being in ASM was irrelevant to the speed. I would think linkers would be mostly IO bound since they do fairly simple things with large amounts of data, so that would argue that it shouldn't matter much whether it's in ASM or C. --bb
