Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 13:06:10 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 15:55:22, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 15:10:53, Matt Taylor wrote: > ><snip> >>I've never found a way around this limitation. My best answer is to say that the >>loads/stores can be optimized out by a post-optimizer. >> >>I have tools which would enable me to easily write such a program, but the tools >>are only half-working. I need the ability to reverse engineer an executable file >>-- right now I miss some sections of code completely, and finding them does not >>look like an easy task. Once that is done, it would be trivial to inline >>functions and do some simple load/store optimization. >> >>-Matt > >Thanks Matt, >that's a real pity with inlined asm - some more bytes (8 if already in register) >for each parameter. But it seems the temporary load/stores on the stack are not >so expensive, at least not so expensive that even small inlined asm-routines pay >off. > >Cheers, >Gerd Yeah, some 4-6 clocks penalty which can be hidden...it pays off since the call/ret pair are more expensive. It is annoying and unnecessary, though. I can appreciate gcc's inline assembly because they avoid this problem. It wouldn't be a stellar improvement, but elimination of that extra memory access would be excellent. -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.