|
 |
Warp wrote:
> Pabs <pab### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> : Maybe they thought that the compiler would insert instructions to convert an
> : int to a double at runtime, unlikely though it is?
> It's just incredible how the compiler can figure out that what you are
> actually trying to do is a rotation and compiles the rather complex command
> into one rotation assembler instruction (instead of two shifts and an or).
Ever seen the sh*t f**cking code msvc produces with no optimisations for things
like the following?
++i;
the code is something like (I'm not to proficient in assembly so don't tease)
mov eax, i
add eax, 1
mov i, eax
The side effect is what we want since the value returned by the operator is just
discarded
What a waste of clock cycles - even I could tell you that
inc i
or something similar would achieve the desired result
Just because its compiled in debug mode doesn't mean I want the code to be bloated
like a bl**dy f**cking pig.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr!
Death to M$VC & M$ - NOW
--
Bye
Pabs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
