purepd WAS: Re: [PD] comport and bascom avr / ascii2any
martinrp at vax2.concordia.ca
Mon Nov 21 23:37:42 CET 2005
Thomas Grill wrote:
> Martin Peach schrieb:
>> Marc Lavallée wrote:
>>> Le 21 Novembre 2005 15:08, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
>>>> Assembly is even faster than C, so why aren't people writing
>>>> objects in
>>> Because assembly is unreadable, like some PD patches.
>> ...and not portable, you need to write different code for each
>> processor, whereas a C compiler can take c code and make the
>> appropriate assembly from it. So c objects end up written in assembly
>> anyway. The only advantage in writing directly in assembly is if you
>> think you can write better code than the compiler, which was quite
>> possible in the past, but nowadays not so easy.
> Well, ever heard of atomic instructions and lockfree code?
> And how about SIMD?
Well I said it's not so easy...
> Would you show me how to code that in C?
I think intel released a compiler that would specifically use SIMD, and
I always believed the commercial compilers also used them when asked as
part of the optimisation. So whenever you want multiple instruction
processing you need to declare variables as arrays of multiples of four
and the compiler will optimize as parallel instructions...See this:
I would guess that thread libraries implement the locking and atomicity
in assembly so I don't need to worry about it, but I haven't gotten
there yet...Possibly future versions of the c standard will include
keywords for threading support.
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
More information about the Pd-list