Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 526110
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Tue 10th Jul 2012 02:58
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
DeepThought,
Yea, GCC often produces subpar code in my experience. Depending on how tight a loop needs to be, hand-crafted assembly can bring decent gains. Sometimes we can get away swapping in intrinsics, other times GCC just refuses to output good code.
ICC is supposed to be an excellent code optimiser though.
It's all relative though, computers have gotten so fast we're usually waiting on I/O anyway.
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 10th Jul 2012 16:23
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Yea, GCC often produces subpar code in my experience. Depending on how tight a loop needs to be, hand-crafted assembly can bring decent gains. Sometimes we can get away swapping in intrinsics, other times GCC just refuses to output good code.
It needs to be said that coding in asm does not have automatic benefits of any kind. The quality of asm depends on the knowledge and capability of the person programming it. I've seen plenty of terrible asm. There _can be_ benefits to asm, but it isn't a given and shouldn't be overstated.
It's all relative though, computers have gotten so fast we're usually waiting on I/O anyway.
Yup.
Edited 2012-07-10 16:24 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by whartung on Tue 10th Jul 2012 18:24
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"





Member since:
2010-07-17
:-) I did not want to start the old ASM vs. C vs. C++ war again. But there are good reasons to write assembly code. And yes, a bad algorithm in assembly stays a bad algorithm :-)
And sometimes, you just can't speed up things anymore.