Comments by Alexander Voronin

Alexander Voronin 13-Dec-11 3:28am View

Deleted

for(t=0;t<19999999;t++); too hard for any CPU.. :)
Why not use System.Threading.Sleep()?

Also it's crap that windows console do not maped to any kind of vide memory. In a REAL text mode you could still use something like:

static public unsafe void VideoPoke ( int addr, byte data) {
byte* ptr = (byte*)0xb80000 + addr;
ptr[addr] = data;
}

to put char into screen :)

Alexander Voronin 15-Nov-11 4:47am View

Deleted

Could You please provide full source code for this example? I can't get ASP work with this code as is.

Alexander Voronin 27-Sep-11 2:43am View

Deleted

Use databinding, Luke! 8)

Alexander Voronin 9-Aug-11 10:46am View

Deleted

rep will take 3+count of dwords CPU clocks to work, you have 5 instructions on each 16 bytes of data, also there is too much work to get data aligned correctly. Unfortunately I did not find clocking for SSE instructions. For short data arrays it's not acceptable. It should be interesting to make some test on this issue for different chunks of data form few bytes to few kilobytes.

Alexander Voronin 9-Aug-11 10:10am View

Deleted

"rep stosd" much faster.

Alexander Voronin 9-Aug-11 9:56am View

Deleted

Please repost testing results here. It must be interesting.

Alexander Voronin 9-Aug-11 9:20am View

Deleted

IC for now. Thanx for explanation. This behaviour also present in 2005 paper. Whatever this syntax is not compatible with old standard and must not touch old code. How do you think could it be hit on performance?

Alexander Voronin 9-Aug-11 4:41am View

Deleted

Where did you get this? Standard (let's take this http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/expr.html#expr.new or this http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1905.pdf 5.3.4) says nothing about such kind of behaviour. Also it's obvious that this behavior is too implicit to use it. Do not mislead young padawans.. :)

Comments by Alexander Voronin (Top 8 by date)