Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Undelivered mail Message-ID: <12274@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: 12 Mar 88 06:37:47 GMT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 31 Subject: Re: Portable "asm" (Was: The D Programming Language) [Non-Deliverable: User does not exist or has never logged on] Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 6737 for SXJVK@ALASKA; Fri, 11 Mar 88 21:08 AST Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4533; Fri, 11 Mar 88 22:07:32 PST Date: Thu, 10 Mar 88 18:08:20 GMT Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Sender: Info-C List Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU From: Eddie Wyatt Subject: Re: Portable "asm" (Was: The D Programming Language) Comments: To: info-c@brl-smoke.arpa To: Vic Kapella > Since the interface between C and in-line asm seems to be so > problematic (not to mention non-portable), why not write > those routines that should be written in assembly in assembly? To which the obvious reply is speed - functions invocation can be RELATIVELY expensive. The time taken to invoke a subroutine may out way any gains that the asm statement made. Disclaimer - I don't use asm - don't plan on it either. -- Eddie Wyatt e-mail: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu