Why does everyone assume that the poor performance of the
GP2 demos seen so far is down to poorly compiled code
(i.e. including debugging tools etc.)? It surely isn't
that difficult for Geoff Crammond to compile his code
to, say 95% efficiency by just including a few command
line codes for the compiler????? Can anyone enlighten me?
Fraser
Only at a couple of Shows/Exhibitions - nothing has been released to the
masses.
Steve.
I would say it's more likely that there is just inefficient code that has
been thrown together for the demo, rather than simple compiler Debug code
(although that is possible).
Steve.
To Fraser:
I take it you're not a programmer. The compiler will optimise the code
for you but to make it EFFICIENT you have to do your job well. All the
compiler does is convert your code into a machine readable language so
all the onus on making the code efficient (ie not as resource hungry) is
on the programmer (mind you there are applications that can do some of
the work forr you.)
Personally I'm not too bothered as I'll have my lovely new P100 by the
time it's released... (if anyone's buying a new PC, PC Science in the UK
are offering P100's for the same price as the P90).
Max
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: zen.ecs.soton.ac.uk
|>
|>
|> >: Why does everyone assume that the poor performance of the
|> >: GP2 demos seen so far is down to poorly compiled code
|> >: (i.e. including debugging tools etc.)? It surely isn't
|> >: that difficult for Geoff Crammond to compile his code
|> >: to, say 95% efficiency by just including a few command
|> >: line codes for the compiler????? Can anyone enlighten me?
|>
|> >Theres demos now? playable? or are you talking about that infamous .mov
|> >file? if its playable, can i have the address?
|>
|> Something bothered me about the first message and I'll ask that question
|> after answering the latest bit.
|> The demo he's talkiing about is the demonsstration copies of the VGA game
|> that MPS are taking to shows with them. II've played it and aside from
|> any screen rate problems etc it's looking very good.
|>
|> To Fraser:
|> I take it you're not a programmer. The compiler will optimise the code
|> for you but to make it EFFICIENT you have to do your job well. All the
|> compiler does is convert your code into a machine readable language so
|> all the onus on making the code efficient (ie not as resource hungry) is
|> on the programmer (mind you there are applications that can do some of
|> the work forr you.)
Generally agreed. Although some good compilers have code optimization
built-in, such as register optimization and branch prediction just to
name a few, the big job relies on the programmer himself. If the programmer
can't write efficient code, the compiler can't do much to improve speed.
For speed critical code, it is best to write it entirely in assembly
where maximum optimization can be done. This is also true for multiple
processor programs where different processors have different characteristics
and the programmer must write different routines for each of the target
processors to achieve the best possible performance. In this aspect, I
have faith on Geoff.
--
Isaac Wong (613) 763-6127 | Protel Compiler Group
http://chat.carleton.ca/~iwong | Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
