> > I cannot understand where you are going with that. If it was such a superior > > improvement, why the 20% odd slow down in the core? Easier to read was it? > > There's not a 20% slowdown in the core (there was a bench run about the time the core > was first converted to C++ and the results were identical), and you edited out my > entire point: all of the Moore's Law cites you disparage were made when MAME was > still 100% C. By your theory, Naomi should've been running full speed on a Pentium 3 > in 0.128. > > You're stuck in the dogmatic dead end of thinking the implementation language and > other details are more important to the results (including performance) than the > algorithm. I've said it before, I'll say it again: start up DEMUL, change the CPU to > "interpreter" and the graphics to "software", and marvel at the identical-to-MAME > framerates.
Can you please provide the link to the bench results?
Naomi on a P3....I would have settled for Dkong on a P3.
I'll do as you suggest and check out DEMUL out of pure curiosity.
Index 
Flat 
Re: C versus C++ with regard to MAME
Reply
