Replace invalid characters with HTML entities
— with — ’ with ’ + with + × with x ç with ç “ with “ ” with ” ‘ with ‘ • with • – with - µ with µ † with † Fix C++ θ with θ Yen symbol instead of times Fix broken apos Bullet again E-circumflex
This commit is contained in:
James Gregory
parent
9e52de9586
commit
500e7f5654
353 changed files with 5091 additions and 5091 deletions
28
01-06.html
28
01-06.html
|
|
@ -69,12 +69,12 @@ Parmsends
|
|||
_ChecksumChunkprocnear
|
||||
push bp
|
||||
mov bp,sp
|
||||
push si ;save C’s register variable
|
||||
push si ;save C’s register variable
|
||||
;
|
||||
cld ;make LODSB increment SI
|
||||
mov si,[bp+Buffer] ;point to buffer
|
||||
mov cx,[bp+BufferLength] ;get buffer length
|
||||
mov bx,[bp+Checksum] ;point to checksum variable
|
||||
mov si,[bp+Buffer] ;point to buffer
|
||||
mov cx,[bp+BufferLength] ;get buffer length
|
||||
mov bx,[bp+Checksum] ;point to checksum variable
|
||||
mov dx,[bx] ;get the current checksum
|
||||
sub ah,ah ;so AX will be a 16-bit value after LODSB
|
||||
ChecksumLoop:
|
||||
|
|
@ -83,28 +83,28 @@ ChecksumLoop:
|
|||
loop ChecksumLoop ;continue for all bytes in block
|
||||
mov [bx],dx ;save the new checksum
|
||||
;
|
||||
pop si ;restore C’s register variable
|
||||
pop si ;restore C’s register variable
|
||||
pop bp
|
||||
ret
|
||||
_ChecksumChunkendp
|
||||
end
|
||||
</PRE>
|
||||
<!-- END CODE //-->
|
||||
<P>Note that in Table 1.1, optimization makes little difference except in the case of Listing 1.5, where the design has been refined considerably. Execution time in the other cases is dominated by time spent in DOS and/or the C library, so optimization of the code you write is pretty much irrelevant. What’s more, while the approximately two-times improvement we got by optimizing is not to be sneezed at, it pales against the up-to-50-times improvement we got by redesigning.
|
||||
<P>Note that in Table 1.1, optimization makes little difference except in the case of Listing 1.5, where the design has been refined considerably. Execution time in the other cases is dominated by time spent in DOS and/or the C library, so optimization of the code you write is pretty much irrelevant. What’s more, while the approximately two-times improvement we got by optimizing is not to be sneezed at, it pales against the up-to-50-times improvement we got by redesigning.
|
||||
</P>
|
||||
<P>By the way, the execution times even of Listings 1.6 and 1.7 are dominated by DOS disk access times. If a disk cache is enabled and the file to be checksummed is already in the cache, the assembly version is three times as fast as the C version. In other words, the inherent nature of this application limits the performance improvement that can be obtained via assembly. In applications that are more CPU-intensive and less disk-bound, particularly those applications in which string instructions and/or unrolled loops can be used effectively, assembly tends to be considerably faster relative to C than it is in this very specific case.</P>
|
||||
<TABLE WIDTH="100%"><TD WIDTH="5%" VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="images/i.jpg"><TD WIDTH="95%"><SMALL><I>Don’t get hung up on optimizing compilers or assembly language—the best optimizer is between your ears.</I></SMALL>
|
||||
<TABLE WIDTH="100%"><TD WIDTH="5%" VALIGN="TOP"><IMG SRC="images/i.jpg"><TD WIDTH="95%"><SMALL><I>Don’t get hung up on optimizing compilers or assembly language—the best optimizer is between your ears.</I></SMALL>
|
||||
</TABLE>
|
||||
<P>All this is basically a way of saying: Know where you’re going, know the territory, and know when it matters.
|
||||
<P>All this is basically a way of saying: Know where you’re going, know the territory, and know when it matters.
|
||||
</P>
|
||||
<H3><A NAME="Heading13"></A><FONT COLOR="#000077">Where We’ve Been, What We’ve Seen</FONT></H3>
|
||||
<P>What have we learned? Don’t let other people’s code—even DOS—do the work for you when speed matters, at least not without knowing what that code does and how well it performs.
|
||||
<H3><A NAME="Heading13"></A><FONT COLOR="#000077">Where We’ve Been, What We’ve Seen</FONT></H3>
|
||||
<P>What have we learned? Don’t let other people’s code—even DOS—do the work for you when speed matters, at least not without knowing what that code does and how well it performs.
|
||||
</P>
|
||||
<P>Optimization only matters after you’ve done your part on the program design end. Consider the ratios on the vertical axis of Table 1.1, which show that optimization is almost totally wasted in the checksumming application without an efficient design. Optimization is no panacea. Table 1.1 shows a two-times improvement from optimization—and a 50-times-plus improvement from redesign. The longstanding debate about which C compiler optimizes code best doesn’t matter quite so much in light of Table 1.1, does it? Your organic optimizer matters much more than your compiler’s optimizer, and there’s always assembly for those usually small sections of code where performance really matters.</P>
|
||||
<H4 ALIGN="LEFT"><A NAME="Heading14"></A><FONT COLOR="#000077">Where We’re Going</FONT></H4>
|
||||
<P>This chapter has presented a quick step-by-step overview of the design process. I’m not claiming that this is the only way to create high-performance code; it’s just an approach that works for me. Create code however you want, but never forget that design matters more than detailed optimization. Never stop looking for inventive ways to boost performance—and never waste time speeding up code that doesn’t need to be sped up.
|
||||
<P>Optimization only matters after you’ve done your part on the program design end. Consider the ratios on the vertical axis of Table 1.1, which show that optimization is almost totally wasted in the checksumming application without an efficient design. Optimization is no panacea. Table 1.1 shows a two-times improvement from optimization—and a 50-times-plus improvement from redesign. The longstanding debate about which C compiler optimizes code best doesn’t matter quite so much in light of Table 1.1, does it? Your organic optimizer matters much more than your compiler’s optimizer, and there’s always assembly for those usually small sections of code where performance really matters.</P>
|
||||
<H4 ALIGN="LEFT"><A NAME="Heading14"></A><FONT COLOR="#000077">Where We’re Going</FONT></H4>
|
||||
<P>This chapter has presented a quick step-by-step overview of the design process. I’m not claiming that this is the only way to create high-performance code; it’s just an approach that works for me. Create code however you want, but never forget that design matters more than detailed optimization. Never stop looking for inventive ways to boost performance—and never waste time speeding up code that doesn’t need to be sped up.
|
||||
</P>
|
||||
<P>I’m going to focus on specific ways to create high-performance code from now on. In Chapter 5, we’ll continue to look at restartable blocks and internal buffering, in the form of a program that searches files for text strings.</P><P><BR></P>
|
||||
<P>I’m going to focus on specific ways to create high-performance code from now on. In Chapter 5, we’ll continue to look at restartable blocks and internal buffering, in the form of a program that searches files for text strings.</P><P><BR></P>
|
||||
<CENTER>
|
||||
<TABLE BORDER>
|
||||
<TR>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue