Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #30263Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
From: Rich Siegel
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1988 18:28
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1988 18:28
14 lines
1016 bytes
1016 bytes
In article <14534@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes:
[Miscellaneous griping about the missing '881 inline support]
It's not so terrible as all that. I agree that the lack of FPCP opcodes
in the inline assembler is a deficiency, but between the inline generation
of the normal arithmetic opcodes and the high-performance library ("Math881")
that I wrote ( :-] ) you'll find that your code is plenty fast.
>I like C, but nothing beats 10% asm, 90% C programming.
I guess so; actually, my code is 95% Pascal, 5% C...
--Rich
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4971@husc6.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!endor!singerReferences:
<7215@cup.portal.com> <14534@santra.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!endor!singer From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long) Message-ID: <4971@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 17 Jul 88 18:28:53 GMT References: <7215@cup.portal.com> <14534@santra.UUCP> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA Lines: 14