home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!dcs.warwick.ac.uk!mashton
- From: mashton@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
- Subject: Re: 32bit versions of wb3 ??
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.163819.25003@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Network News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: stone
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
- References: <1jmnp8INNfan@mercury.kingston.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:38:19 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <1jmnp8INNfan@mercury.kingston.ac.uk> cs_e445@king.ac.uk (Vlod Kalicun) writes:
- >Hi Netters,
- >Does anyone know why C= don't make specific version of Workbench for specific
- >chips.??
- >What I mean is compile WB (presume in C) with flags, so 68020/68040 instructions
- >can be used.
- >Wouldn't WB/and its other applications run faster, as the later chips will
- >have better instructions??
- >
- >I relize that this wouldn't work on a stock 68000, but I don't see any real
- >cost in doing this. Amigas generally come with WB so, if I upgrade to a
- >4000, then I get a faster version of WB.
- >Or is the speed increase minimal and a waste of time.. ??
- >
- >Regards..
- >
- >Vlod
- >-Amiga Advocate.
- >----------------------------------------------
- >Amiga - Anything else isn't worth considering
- >----------------------------------------------
-
-
- What makes you think that they don't?
- How can you be sure without disassembling the code?
- As WB3.0 won't run on a non-32bit processor they might well of done.
- However, this is Commodore we're talking about.
- Do they know _how_ to set compiler options ?? :-)
- ___
- mashton@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
- The best way not to be unhappy is not to have a word for it.
-
- The opinions expressed are entirely those of myself and the little purple
- people that visit me from time to time.They are not those of my employer,
- basically,because I haven't got one.
-