Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!rex!wuarchive!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!am.dsir.govt.nz!peterm From: peterm@am.dsir.govt.nz (Peter McGavin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Peter, can you explain to the Amigoids (was: NeXT software size Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 16:26:58 GMT References: <11905@uwm.edu><1991May8.013155.14300@neon.Stanford .EDU><3394.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz><1991May9.173914.6203@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@am.dsir.govt.nz Organization: Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research, NZ. Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: torrie@cs.stanford.edu's message of 9 May 91 17:39:14 GMT jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <1991May8.013155.14300@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): >> Summary: You can't make a prediction of dynamic execution time by >> looking at a static attribute like program size. > > You _can_ estimate though, particularly if the programs have the > same functionality, and if you've seen this heuristic succeed a I expanded some subroutines in my Z80 emulator to macros. It made the program nearly twice as big and about 10% faster. Fast CPU-based line-drawing algorithms are often huge compared with standard ones. The inner loop is replicated for every colour combination. Peter McGavin. (peterm@am.dsir.govt.nz or srwmpnm@wnv.dsir.govt.nz)