18 Oct
2002
18 Oct
'02
12:28 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:39:13 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
I was trying with float, lowpass filters, written in an OO style (so I
expected c++ to be faster).
The assembler output from c++ was obvously inefficient, and I
checked all the inlinging was taking place. The equivalent c was much
better.
- Steve
Hmmm... My
experiments with c++, dsp code and gcc (recent 2.96) did not
turn out very well. For some reason the optimiser totaly chokes on c++
code. I only tried one routine, and I'm no c++ expert, so its possible I
screwed something up, but it did not look encouraging. I will revisit this
and also try gcc3, which has much better c++ support IIRC.
from my experience the contrary is true. last time i checked the
assembly code produced by -O3 i found nothing to object to. that
was g++ 2.95 compiling drawing routines on rgb buffers (just ints,
no floats, but comparable to audio dsp in a way).