From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Feb 27 09:19:57 2008 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:10:17 +0100 (MET) From: Jo Even Skarstein To: Message-ID: <4930103.2001211204121417772.JavaMail.adm-moff@moffice10.nsc.no> In-Reply-To: References: <47BC986B.7050704@gmail.com> Subject: [MiNT] SV: Some mintlib patches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_202218_31927613.1204121417766" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Mobile Office v1.44 (Telenor Nordic) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: joska@online.no Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: ------=_Part_202218_31927613.1204121417766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Frank Naumann [fnaumann@boerde.de] > Sent: 2008-02-27 14:43:53 CET > > And, please don't get me wrong. I'm not against special optimized > software. But it must have a noticeable effect. Otherwise you spent lot of > time for nothing. So optimizing the handful of tools there it make sense > is enough. I tend to agree with Frank, optimizing the compiled code for 060 in particular has little affect. These computers are (in Atari terms) already quite fast. I'd rather see some size optimizing of the compiled binaries. gcc tends to generate large binaries. This - combined with the slow speed and resource hogging of the compiler itself - keeps me from using gcc and still use PureC. Jo Even ------=_Part_202218_31927613.1204121417766--