Related articles |
---|
Assembly verses a high-level language. tomviper@ix.netcom.com (1995-11-20) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. macrakis@osf.org (1995-11-22) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. bobduff@world.std.com (1995-11-28) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. marcus@illusion.magicno.com (1995-11-29) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. Graham.Matthews@pell.anu.edu.au (Graham Matthews) (1995-11-29) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. john_reiser@MENTORG.COM (1995-12-09) |
Re: Assembly verses a high-level language. albaugh@agames.com (1995-12-09) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | marcus@illusion.magicno.com (Marcus Hall) |
Keywords: | assembler, performance, comment |
Organization: | Magic Numbers Software |
References: | 95-11-166 |
Date: | Wed, 29 Nov 1995 04:43:41 GMT |
Tom Powell <tomviper@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How come programs written in assembly are so much faster than any
>other high-level language.
In fact, in these days of delay slots and super-scalar architecture, it is
quite possible that a compiler can produce better code than an assembly
language programmer. The fastest code for many modern machines is so
scrambled that it is difficult to read, let alone write.
Of course, one could take hand written code and feed it into an instruction
scheduling optimizer and get *really* fast code...
marcus hall
[Some RISC machines have assemblers which schedule, for the benefit of both
human programmers and less aggressive compilers. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.