A stupid question

[Clay Clear]

I've seen in postings on this BBS, and I think in my online
PB/DLL 6.0 help, that it's better to use LONG's than INTEGER's
where possible, because it makes for greater CPU efficiency.

My question is: does this also apply to programs written using
PB/DOS? It seems like it would, because, whether it's a 32-bit
program or a DOS program, they both use the same CPU. However,
I need to make sure, so I can decide on whether or not to recode
my custom PBU's (and for future DOS programming). The main reason
that I'm not sure is that my QPP (version 1.30) uses almost
nothing but INTEGER's in its procedures. So, maybe the DOS
anatomy is better off using INTEGER's, as compared to LONG's?

Thanks in advance!


------------------
Clay C. Clear

mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

Clay Clear's Software

[Mel Bishop]

If you are doing some serious number crunching, use integers
whereever possible instead of longs. Somebody correct me if I'm
wrong but integers use two bytes of memory whereas longs uses
4 bytes. Integers are about 2 to 6 times faster in processing
speed than longs (and quads, etc).

P.S. I spent 20+ years in the Air Force and I have learned that
the only "stupid" questions are those that goes un-asked.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Mel Bishop (edited September 06, 2001).]

[Lance Edmonds]

In 16-bit land (ie, PB/DOS or Win16 via PB/DLL 1.x-2.x) integers are the fastest.

In 32-bit land (Win32 via PB/DLL or PB/CC) LONG-integers are the fastest.

Basically, it comes down to using the variable size that is native to the mode the CPU is operating in.

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[Clay Clear]

Lance, Mel,

Thanks for your replies!

Lance, I think your reply was more informative than you
realize - until I read it, I wasn't aware that CPU's even HAVE
different "modes" between 16-bit and 32-bit. "Be proud of your
ignorance! Flaunt it!", I always say. <laugh> OK, thanks again -
that datum will come in handy when I finally get around to
learning how to use the inline assembler in PB/DOS & PB/DLL.
And, yes, I've already read the postings by yourself and Tom that
emphatically state "...do NOT use DOS interrupt calls in
Windows programs (or, "when Windows is running"?)..."...so,
that's a pitfall I already know to avoid.

Anyway, thanks to you and Mel, I now know that I don't have to
rewrite my PBU's (my interpretation of the QPP procedures was
correct )

Regards,


------------------
Clay C. Clear

mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

Clay Clear's Software

[Clay Clear]

Mel,

Small world! I was in the US Air Force for 8-1/2 years! I had
every intention of being a "Lifer", but I ended up being
retired for medical reasons, and now subsist on Disability
(nobody was willing to hire me after I became disabled <sigh> ), so
I spend MANY hours on the computer and the 'Net, mainly programming.


Lance,

I apologize for this "off-topic" posting - I won't post anymore
like it. just wanted to "touch base" with Mel. Sorry.

Regards,


------------------
Clay C. Clear

mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

Clay Clear's Software