From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2001-10-03 15:57:32
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:14:58PM +0200, groepaz wrote:
> depending on what kind of optimization the current
> development-compiler adds... i'd say it's entire possible it could
> spit out the "perfekt" code for this ,=) (resulting in >50 fps
> probably)
I don't think that the changes will more than double the framerate, since the
loop overhead is not that big, but of course this depends on how much you're
unrolling the loop. [Tested this with the development compiler: When
unrolling the inner loop for the screen writes the frame rate jumps up to
about 20fps.]
> b) i noticed that the compiler i am using (win32 2.6.2 package) has a
> bug with (static) initialized variables (the frame-counter in your revised
> plasma code wont work here).... so first thing i did was checking the
> compiler-version and SURPRISE... the compiler from the 2.6.2 package
> prints 2.6.1 as version number ?!? is that a mistake in the package or
> just a typo ? :o)
I forgot to bump the version number. Sorry.
BTW: The bug you are talking about is already listed on the "known bugs" page.
If you have a problem with the compiler it is usually worth having a look at
this page.
> oh another thing..... is the linker smart enough to just link the
> routines from a .lib file that are needed? or does it work simelar to
> the gnu-linker? (links all routines at once that have been in one .o
> -or .c/.s file respectivly- before)
The linker links in all referenced modules (not routines!) from a library
file, plus all object files regardless of the fact that they are referenced or
not. This is the standard behaviour for most C compilers.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:42 CET