> There should be a significant decrease in time when the
> numbers are
> smaller, eg when the dword contains 123.
I think the three constant-table-lookups of a dword take their time.
> Anyway, I don't see more options for significant
> performance without
> increasing code size.
Yes... The compiler makes you forget how big dwords are :-)
I've sped up the conversion in your version before the last to an average of
19365 by taking out the division by 10:
case digit_divisor of -- funny replacement of digit_divisor / 10
1: digit_divisor=0
10: digit_divisor=1
100: digit_divisor=10
1_000: digit_divisor=100
10_000: digit_divisor=1_000
100_000: digit_divisor=10_000
1_000_000: digit_divisor=100_000
10_000_000: digit_divisor=1_000_000
100_000_000: digit_divisor=10_000_000
1_000_000_000: digit_divisor=100_000_000
end case
but this little case statement eats more than 200 words of code!
Greets,
Kiste
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
