Re: Flat Short of MEMORY_BLOCK

Franck Arnaud:
> > The times seem to indicate that Franck and Berend's tests were 
> > invalid because `test' was optimized out.
> 
> Not with gcc: I set the repeat rate to take a few seconds to
> execute on my machine, and it varied proportionally when I changed 
> the number of repeats. Assembly checks confirm it looks like it's 
> doing what is expected, so gcc is less clever than MS C here.

You may be seeing the small overhead of the function call. Would you 
mind humoring me and move the declaration of buffer outside of the 
scope of `test', and run the tests again?

Brian



To Post a message, send it to:   [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [email protected] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gobo-eiffel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/