Remove colour attributes from body and strip most of the font tags out

This commit is contained in:
James Gregory 2013-12-30 13:57:02 +11:00
commit c1f88ddb41
362 changed files with 1632 additions and 1706 deletions

View file

@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
<!--CHAPTER=01//-->
<!--PAGES=015-017//-->
<!--UNASSIGNED1//-->
<!--UNASSIGNED2//--></HEAD><BODY LINK=#0000FF ALINK=#000099 VLINK=#0000FF BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF>
<!--UNASSIGNED2//--></HEAD><body>
<CENTER>
<TABLE BORDER>
@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
<P>That brings us to the fourth reason: avoiding an internal-buffered implementation like Listing 1.5 because of the difficulty of coding such an approach. True, it is easier to let a C library function do the work, but it&rsquo;s not all that hard to do the buffering internally. The key is the concept of handling data in <I>restartable blocks;</I> that is, reading a chunk of data, operating on the data until it runs out, suspending the operation while more data is read in, and then continuing as though nothing had happened.</P>
<P>In Listing 1.5 the restartable block implementation is pretty simple because checksumming works with one byte at a time, forgetting about each byte immediately after adding it into the total. Listing 1.5 reads in a block of bytes from the file, checksums the bytes in the block, and gets another block, repeating the process until the entire file has been processed. In Chapter 5, we&rsquo;ll see a more complex restartable block implementation, involving searching for text strings.</P>
<P>At any rate, Listing 1.5 isn&rsquo;t much more complicated than Listing 1.4&mdash;and it&rsquo;s a <I>lot</I> faster. Always consider the alternatives; a bit of clever thinking and program redesign can go a long way.</P>
<H4 ALIGN="LEFT"><A NAME="Heading12"></A><FONT COLOR="#000077">Know How to Turn On the Juice</FONT></H4>
<H4 ALIGN="LEFT"><A NAME="Heading12"></A>Know How to Turn On the Juice</H4>
<P>I have said time and again that optimization is pointless until the design is settled. When that time comes, however, optimization can indeed make a significant difference. Table 1.1 indicates that the optimized version of Listing 1.5 produced by Microsoft C outperforms an unoptimized version of the same code by more than 60 percent. What&rsquo;s more, a mostly-assembly version of Listing 1.5, shown in Listings 1.6 and 1.7, outperforms even the best-optimized C version of List1.5 by 26 percent. These are considerable improvements, well worth pursuing&mdash;once the design has been maxed out.
</P>
<P><B>LISTING 1.6 L1-6.C</B></P>
@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
<hr width="90%" size="1" noshade>
<div align="center">
<font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">Graphics Programming Black Book &copy; 2001 Michael Abrash</font>
Graphics Programming Black Book &copy; 2001 Michael Abrash
</div>
<!-- all of the reference materials (books) have the footer and subfoot reveresed -->
<!-- reference_subfoot = footer -->