CB>That's not the point of what I keep trying to tell him.
I consider losing 20% performance on a 486 because you lose 1% on a 586 is 
hardly a good point to stress accross.
CB>A profiler would only gauge what a section of code does on your machine
CB>with your compiler.  And you end up low level tweaking your code for
CB>that situation, while those same tweaks cause slow downs for everybody
CB>else.  Using pointers vs. arrays is case in point.  Whether it's
CB>'better' depends too much on the compiler and the CPU family.
Look Carey, I know all this hard stuff is kind of confusing for you, but do 
realize that I am/have/and always will be _CORRECT_.
CB>That's what I've been trying to tell him.  Low level tweakings of
CB>the type he wants to do simply don't hold from one system & compiler
CB>to another.
Oh really. GCC compilers are availble on just about every combination of 
platform and os, keep code portable and compatible is hardly a hard task.
CB>A lot of people keep trying to educate him, but I guess he's just going
CB>to have to learn the hard way on his own.  After he's had a couple of
CB>years experience programming, he'll probably feel foolish about his
CB>current position.
Judging by your extensive ignorance and invalid results, I doubt you are one 
to say something like that. Obviously your frail elogical child-like 
mentality can't understand that I do not need to be tutored by a student. I 
think 15 years in programming can certainaly pay off. I have posted my 
results, I have re-tested all my posted programs and have found that your 
results are nothing short of invalid. You and Jerry are either
1) Using RISC based machines
2) Using 20 year old compilers.
3) Malicious liers
I really don't care what you have to contribute, so please stop wasting my 
time.
... I'm not dead, I'm metabolically challenged.
--- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b
---------------