Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Funky. I'll have to take a look to see what they're doing. Back when
> efficiency was more a concern, compilers would go out of their way to avoid
> loading FP code (like for printf()) if they didn't need to. Maybe it's
> faster to draw lines with FP nowadays than to use Bresenham or something.

I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere at the heart of my graphics card,
Bresenham would still be very much alive and kicking :)

But the main problem, back then, was that not every computer did have an FPU
after all. Even the 486 came without one in the SX variant. (Well, in fact it
came with one, but it probably had failed QC, so instad of throwing away the
whole die it got a fuse blown or some bonding wire not attached or what have
you to just disable the faulty FPU)

Post a reply to this message