PE> Look at the generated object code to see whether the code
 PE> actually generates worse assembler.

 BL> I've been doing that, adding up clock ticks as well as running
 BL> profiler tests, and Pascal impresses the shit out of me. It
 BL> varies a bit, but 20% off optimum ASM is about the result for
 BL> small functions. That's *very* good.

 PE> Show me the comparison to the C code, and I'll show you what
 PE> you did wrong in the C programming. 

  Eh? I was comparing Pascal and ASM, looking at the runtime library
ASM code and seeing how much faster it was than the stuff I could
werite in Pascal itself. It varies a bit (especially with strings when
ASM uses those instructions I can't remember offhand), but on average
Pascal is only a little slower than ASM. I haven't bothered to check C
(seeign it won't lead me anywhere) but from the tests Frank did with
your Watcom I'd expect C to be nearly as good as ASM.

 PE> I thought you got a little manual, and a big manual, with Turbo
 PE> Assembler, which you got from David Begley? 

  O SHIT! SHITTT!!!

  Thank you! Bloody hell. I've got two of them! ROFL!!

  I'm getting worse.. I really am. I've been abusing the shit out of
Borland asking "Why don't they print a pamphlet with the instruction
set in it?" ROFL!! I got one with David's BC++ and with BP7 too! 

  NOW... I remember!  Gee! What a good idea. Borland are terrific.

  The thing is, when I first looked in the book I didn't have a clue,
and just put it out of my mind. Will you lookat this! It's got
everything I want.

 PE> Oh, you mean on the BBS. If INT*.* from 3:711/934 doesn't have
 PE> it (Ralph Brown's interrupt list) then I don't know. 

  I don't need it now. I'd rather have it in a book anyway. Thanks.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---