Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!warwick
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: This week's program
Message-ID: <2087@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 24 Jun 91 02:02:35 GMT
References: <1991Jun22.003927.19972@menudo.uh.edu>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 44

>This week's program will copy a file that has a bad sector(s) somewhere in the
>file.  This archive includes docs and the program.

Sounds useful.




>100% assembly


	^ Oh.  In that case, I will not use it.

Why does an IO program need to use assembly?

I think the most required attribute for an IO program would be:

	Correctness (ie. Stuff-up-my-files-and-I'll-kill-you)


While the least required attribute would be:

	Efficiency


Since the program will spend 99% of it's time waiting for the disk anyway.
Using the assembly instruction

	move.IO   #"A:file","B:file"

which, as you know, copies two files in one clock cycle, then waits for
the disk to catch up, would only speed up the process by 1%.


Don't get me wrong, I use assembly a lot.  But only for speed critical routines
that have obvious correctness (eg. Sprite works / Sprite doesn't work).

Ciao,
Warwick.
--
  _-_|\       warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
 /     *  <-- Computer Science Department,
 \_.-._/      University of Queensland,
      v       Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.