🚀 go-pugleaf

tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes:

>In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes:
>>
>>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:

>[ rest of post deleted ]

>>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is
>>faster than segmented memory.

>Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps,
>the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor.  I would tend
>to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the
>segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit
>addresses.

>Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3....

Hi!

To stray back, a small model program for Windows doesn't necessarily gain
as much as it would in DOS, where the library calls and indirect references
to data really are near/short.  In Windows, all calls to external modules
will inavoidably be far, most of which also require pointers to be long.

The (static) library calls still are near, but there is an option of not
using them at all, in which case you'll get 99% identical executables in
both small and medium model for many source codes.

(This is *not* to say, that programs made for Windows are inefficient in
one way or other, nor am I doing any comparison between Windows and Mac!)

Terveisin: Risto Lankinen
-- 
Risto Lankinen / product specialist ***************************************
Nokia Data Systems, Technology Dept *  2                              3   *
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK * 2 +1 is PRIME!  Now working on 2 -1 *
replies: risto@yj.data.nokia.fi     ***************************************