Re: Rob: Bug with Windows trasking translator
Vincent wrote:
> Rob before you dismiss OW,
>
> Are you going to try removing the workaround code in a backup copy of the
> source
> and see what kind of performance gain you'll get?
There are places where I insert bits of machine code.
Watcom doesn't understand what I'm doing, so it sometimes
"optimizes" things the wrong way. To get around it,
I sometimes have to write my code in a strange way.
I tried undoing one of these with OW 1.4, and it worked,
but then I found it also works now with 10.6.
I can see now that most of these little workarounds
have zero effect on performance. The rest have an effect
so tiny you'd never be able to measure it.
> If you get a notable speed increase then maybe OW might still viable because
> then you would have these benefits:
>
> 1) A speed improvement in time() without profile_time or tick_rate().
> 2) Speed improvement by removing bug workaround.
> 3) ?
Bottom line: there's not enough here to possibly save OW 1.4,
even if it did eliminate a few workarounds. It's also very
tedious to test this. From what I can see, the code generation
algorithms are the same.
> Otherwise OW might not be worth switching to because of the full-screen issue?
It looks that way.
I can easily switch from 10.6 to 1.4, or vice versa.
Maybe we'll think of some other advantage in the future,
but for now I've gone back to 10.6.
> If you don't use OW, are you planning to document that using profile_time or
> tick_rate() can magically speed up graphic intensive multi-tasking DOS
> applications?
Yes, I've done that already.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
