View Single Post
Old 08-16-2024, 12:49 PM   #40
jbjb
Somewhat clueless
jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 772
Karma: 9999999
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoth View Post
I can't think of a situation where an entire program needs to be in assembler.
Agreed.

Modern, high-quality C compilers are usually at least as good as expert programmers at optimisation, and often better. Use assembler when you need to know exactly what's happening at the hardware level, but otherwise use the compiler and associated optimisation tools, check the generated assembly for obvious mistakes, and spend your time on algorithmic optimisation rather than instruction-level tweaking.

Fundamentally, it comes down to that if you know something the compiler doesn't, code it in assembler. Otherwise, let it do its job.
jbjb is offline   Reply With Quote