[Scummvm-devel] 256KB reduced binary size vs. speed

[Max Horn]

Am 26.03.2004 um 21:38 schrieb Eugene Sandulenko:

> Max Horn writes:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I can cut down the size of our scummvm binaries by 256KB, at the cose
>> of a potential small speed penalty on the HQ2x/HQ3x filters.
>
>> I am now wondering, should I optimize for speed, or for size...
> I would vote for size. On slow platforms like PalmOS or Dreamcast
> these filters are not used at all, so it will have no impact on them.
>
> For modern systems I think that speed decrease will be just few
> percents, which doesn't really matters since there is no heavy
> computations.

Uhm? No heavy computation? The hq?x filters are *very* heavy in 
computation. Maybe you don't notice it on a 3.6 Ghz system, but running 
an unoptimized build of ScummVM with hq?x and adlib emulation is far 
too much for my lowly G4/400 Mhz system. Even fully optimized, the HQ?x 
filter takes 20% CPU power over here (and thus forms the vast majority 
of the whole computing power used by ScummVM).

>  But right now code size is kind of bloated and even more
> to follow, that's why I vote for size.
>
Just to put this into relation, we are talking 3.1 MB vs 2.9 MB :-), 
i.e. less than 8%; OTOH we are also talking a speed difference of 
probably less than 5%.



Cheers,

Max