🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert AH Prins wrote in message <7nchk7$8rt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7nb22t$p4o$1@tron.sci.fi>,
>  "Raimo Suonio" <raimo.suonio@qdlc.fi> wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand perfectly your question, I figure that you
haven't
>> written the assembler code for yourself.
>
>Explain? If you follow this group, you may very well be aware that I
am
>very much in favour of using BASM, not so much to increase speed, but
>far more to reduce the size of the code, TP6/BP7 aren't exactly very
>strong in that area, especially if your working with arrays and
>pointers (and arrays of pointers)

Oh, my apologies!  I don't have any profile about you.  I really
didn't understand the structure of your question, but it was due to me
having not english as my native language.  I understand it now after
the answer of Pedt Scragg.  Taking that into account, you wrote that
it took ages to find the correction needed after you changed the
element size, and that led me to the conclusion that you had got the
code from someone else and did not know it thoroughly.


>> Anyhow, it seems that the instruction is part of the code that
>> calculates the memory address offset out of the array index.  It
>> simply multiplied the index by 8 and now by 16.
>
>Oh wow, what an insight!
>>
>> If the element size
>> had not been a power of two, the code would have been a little more
>> complex.
>
>I'm stunned! NO, it would not have been more complex, because the
>compiler would have emitted a multiply. For speed reasons, less
>important nowadays, I always make the size of small structures that
are
>to be put in arrays a power of two.

Hey, you don't have to be that nasty.  I just tried to be helpful
according to the premisses I had.


--

Raimo Suonio
raimo.suonio@qdlc.fi (remove spam preventing q)