Paul Scott wrote: > I doubt if this is your problem but on most compilers: > > double num; > > num = 4; > > is inefficient; It normally causes an integer constant 4 to be stored > somewhere. Then when num = 4; is executed the integer 4 is converted > to double every you execute the code.
That might have been true of C compilers 20 years ago, but I doubt it's true today. gcc is probably smart enough to realize that when a literal constant being assigned to a variable, that the constant should be of the same type as the variable. Similarly, it isn't true anymore that "while (1)" is less efficient than "for (;;)", which, 20 years ago, was true on some compilers; for "while (1)", they would actually generate a silly test like, "Load a register with 1, compare the register to zero, jump if equal" -- which, obviously, always failed. I haven't seen that in a long, long time. Craig
