It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:38 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:09 pm
Posts: 1019
tepples wrote:
Or someone doesn't care about micro-optimizations for speed but does care about them for size in an NROM-128 project.

That's not perceived bloat just from reading documentation, which is what the person I was responding to seemed to say. I feel like a hypothetical NROM-128 project is outside that context. But I still disagree with the premise. If you're making an NROM-128 project you could still get more mileage for size out of assembly than the "bloated" by comparison C, right? "But someone could care less about the size benefit of assembly and care more about the time it takes to write in an NROM-256 project." Yes. Sure. Okay.

I guess in general, I feel that while the information presented may add to the thread, I feel that because it's posted as a reply to me, but not as a reply to what I feel like I said that confuses me about how to respond. I answered about features from C++ I use that aren't templates, it doesn't mean there's never a reason not to use them. I can see how that can maybe be gotten from "I don't have a reason to use Y", but I'd have said "There's no reason to use Y" if I meant that.
thefox wrote:
This library is pretty sweet:

Heheh! I know of it. It might be interesting to start a C/++ resource thread, but there's not much I can personally cosign as "used in an actual project".


PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:39 pm 

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:54 pm
Posts: 145
Location: USA
I mean the whole point of high level languages is to abstract away from the underlying asm, so when I'm coding in C I'm only worried about optimizing on a macro scale. Unless I was doing something time-critical/embedded, the amount of time/effort it would take to either A.) write inline-asm that doesn't break the rest of the program (and doesn't gcc force you to use the ugly AT&T syntax for x86?) or B.) writing C code that translates into optimal asm isnt worth it, to me at least.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group