|Re: alignment of data-types firstname.lastname@example.org (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-06)|
|Re: alignment of data-types email@example.com (2003-02-11)|
|Re: alignment of data-types firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark McIntyre) (2003-02-11)|
|Re: alignment of data-types email@example.com (Glen Herrmannsfeldt) (2003-02-12)|
|From:||Mark McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||11 Feb 2003 01:57:26 -0500|
|References:||<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 03-02-033|
|Posted-Date:||11 Feb 2003 01:57:26 EST|
On 6 Feb 2003 00:16:31 -0500, in comp.lang.c , "Glen Herrmannsfeldt"
>"Mark McIntyre" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> You have little or no chance of being better at it than the guys who
>> wrote it, at least not till you're a guru programmer, by which stage
>> you won't need to ask us for advice....
>Should, but not always true.
>It is common for x86 compilers to allocate double variables on 4 byte
>boundaries. This was optimal on the 386 and 486, but not on pentium
>and later processors. The difference can be large.
Indeed. But by the time hte OP truly understands why that is so, he
for sure won't need to ask questions in CLC. Hence the 2nd part of my
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.