Re: [cc65] File I/O on C64

Date view Thread view Subject view

From: BlackJack/Civitas (blackjack_at_civitas64.de)
Date: 2002-11-16 20:31:03 

On Saturday 16 November 2002 13:07, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 01:32:51AM +0100, BlackJack/Civitas wrote:
> > The last sentence is the reason why I still would use
> > cbm_load/save() even if there's C file I/O. A cardrigde with a
> > fastloader speeds loading/saving up very well.
>
> [...]
> So let me take the chance to explain why people often try to optimize
> in the wrong places:-)
>
> Let's do a few calculations. [...]
>
> I think that we can state that for most applications, the overhead is
> a few tenths of a percent, fastloader or not. Is it really worth to
> sacrifice portability for a speed gain of a few tenth of a percent?

I've played with bitmaps and multicolor pictures (Koala format) and I 
really don't want to trade the cbm_load/save() which is speeded up by 
my RetroReplay for unaccelerated C file I/O. It's more than a few tenth 
of a percent difference when loading/saving 32/40 blocks.

If it comes to reading/processing a file bytewise or blockwise it would 
be nice to have portable standard C functions.

Ciao,
	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
-- 
_ _____  __  __ _____________________________________________________
 /  __/ /_/  \_\ CiViTAS - "Lameness rulez"
/  /   ____  ____ http://www.civitas64.de/
\  \_ / /\ \/ /\ \ mailto:blackjack_at_civitas64.de  
 \___/_/  \__/  \_\ C64 forever...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.

Date view Thread view Subject view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-11-17 00:09:21 CET