disagree with you more, reason follows:
'optimising' compilers do not optimise in the same way that writing
'pure' machine code does, Most optimise to compensate for the severe
'overhead' and redundancy that modern API's add to code, which mean that
they are optimised 'relative' to how they would be if this optimisation
didn't occur, however these routines do not IN ANY WAY compare to what a
coder can do with code written from scratch.
oh, and BTW, to the ppl deriding GC's use of Integer math, Yes FPU's
have improved, but are STILL a long way from acheiving the performance
needed,
IIRC Quake II was entirely Integer calc based too.
Alan
> :>I doubt GC is even using vector code
> :>optimised for PIII,Athalon etc. Which, by the way, is a piece of cake
> :>to achieve.
> : In assembler language? Thats what he uses.
> Surely not - in this day and age it's not even efficient. Optimising
> compilers are better than hand optimised assembly language anyway. I
> don't believe GC is using assembler now. For GP2 it wouldn't make MUCH
> sense. For GP1 it's maybe just about a reasonable decision.
> --
> Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
> Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
> Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
> UPDATED WWW: http://www.racesimcentral.net/