Quote:
Originally posted by Tyhm
Yeah. The more common it is, the earlier it appeared, so consequently the simpler it is and the more it's been optimized over the years. I mean, take the * operator verses the for-next loop. You COULD compute x * y as
result=0;
for(i=0;i<x;i++) result+=y;
return result;
but it'd be less efficient because for-next loops are another step removed from the core language. In fact, the computer has to translate THAT into basically a multiplication operator just to cope!
|
I think Tyhm works for Intel