Norman Vine wrote: > Really ?? > then try this both with and without optimization :-))
This program fits easily into the L1 cache. FlightGear does not. For small programs, total instructions executed is more important than code size. For most "real" programs on modern processors, just the opposite is true. Try writing a perl script that duplicates this code, say, 10k times (varying the symbol names each time) and iterates through each one of them. My guess is that you'll see the performance gain from inlining either disappear or turn into a loss. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
