You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
the default implementations of some string functions can consume a lot of clock cycles, e.g. for large arrays which call the prn implementation for each member, yielding some function call overhead. I think (but I'm not certain)that calling printf directly on members would probably be at least a little more efficient: printf("%d" arr[i]) in the for body opposed to prn(arr[i]).
maybe we could tackle this similarly to blit? if there's an interface a type implements perhaps we can perform some optimization where we inline the printf call or something
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
the default implementations of some string functions can consume a lot of clock cycles, e.g. for large arrays which call the prn implementation for each member, yielding some function call overhead. I think (but I'm not certain)that calling printf directly on members would probably be at least a little more efficient:
printf("%d" arr[i])
in the for body opposed toprn(arr[i])
.maybe we could tackle this similarly to
blit
? if there's an interface a type implements perhaps we can perform some optimization where we inline the printf call or somethingThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: