On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:39:13 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote: > >Hmmm... My experiments with c++, dsp code and gcc (recent 2.96) did not > >turn out very well. For some reason the optimiser totaly chokes on c++ > >code. I only tried one routine, and I'm no c++ expert, so its possible I > >screwed something up, but it did not look encouraging. I will revisit this > >and also try gcc3, which has much better c++ support IIRC. > > from my experience the contrary is true. last time i checked the > assembly code produced by -O3 i found nothing to object to. that > was g++ 2.95 compiling drawing routines on rgb buffers (just ints, > no floats, but comparable to audio dsp in a way).
I was trying with float, lowpass filters, written in an OO style (so I expected c++ to be faster). The assembler output from c++ was obvously inefficient, and I checked all the inlinging was taking place. The equivalent c was much better. - Steve