Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/02/28/15:50:40
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:38:10 -0500, Paul Derbyshire <pderbysh AT usa DOT net>
wrote:
Hi Paul, I realise that Allegro is pretty darned quick at what it
does, blows the socks off anything I could write, what I really wanted
to know was was I overlooking some set of functions or something that
would enable me to do what I wanted to do a little quicker, there are
always quicker ways to achieve a task depending on what lengths you
are prepared to go to, otherwise people like ID would be using
Allegro.
For instance Allegro might have supported some function to program
which part of the VRAM the DAC read from, avoiding the need for
coppying buffers around.
I am new to allegro and wanted to make sure I wans't missing
some fundamental thing.
>Allegro is as fast as it can be at that and darn near everything else it
>does. If something's "too slow" for what you have in mind, it's the
>compiler or the computer. For the fastest compiled code, use the latest
>pgcc from (IIRC) http://www.goof.com to compile your program (don't forget
>to link it with a liballeg.a compiled with pgcc too!) and if it's still not
>fast enough? *shrug* better start saving to upgrade to something like a
>PII-333. :-)
>
>--
> .*. "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not
>-() < circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a
> `*' straight line." -------------------------------------------------
> -- B. Mandelbrot |http://surf.to/pgd.net
>_____________________ ____|________ Paul Derbyshire pderbysh AT usa DOT net
>Programmer & Humanist|ICQ: 10423848|
Kevin.
If you wish to Email or ICQ me, use
kevin AT reality-bytes DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
or
25646989
- Raw text -