Am 17.05.2017 07:15 schrieb <nore...@z505.com>: > > On 2017-05-16 09:10, Jon Foster wrote: > >> I think the key word in Graeme's complaint is "game". And I'm willing >> to bet that most of his envisioned gaming scenarios deal with a lot of >> floating point math and the more advanced math functions. A quick >> glance over his example code and I'm willing to bet that the "math" >> unit providing the sqrt(), cos(), sin() and others is the bottle neck. >> But that's just a knee-jerk reaction. Seems to me I read a while back >> that a ton of effort had not gone into them. >> > > Could those math routines just be written in assembly with a FastXXX unit? i.e. FastMM is a fast memory manager, so you could have a FastCRT, fastWhatever, FastMath... > > At one time the fpc system units or sysutils was written in a lot of assembly, then they changed it to more pascal so it was more readable for people like me who stay away from assembly :-) Not because assembly is bad or anything, I just like living in high level procedural land, instead of low level assembly machine land.
It has nothing to do with readability. It's about portability instead as FPC supports many different CPUs all with their own assembly language and quirks. Though that stops no one from implementing platform specific routines which was done for some platforms (e.g. the x86 ones). Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
