On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:55:25 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>> The macro version used 238 seconds, and the function version used 208 
>> seconds, so the function version takes about 87% as long as the macro.
>
>I decided to do a more accurate calculation by subtracting out the 
>"overhead" of the rest of the scene (by replacing the call to the macro 
>or function with a 0), and found out a surprisingly large portion of the 
>time was spent in the loops themselves...and the function is a great 
>deal faster than the macro.

If we're gonna add functions, might as well make one that does the whole
apprxomated-collision-detection operation, especially if loops are that
slow.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message