Really? He tested and measured a few different approaches. Do you think he's advocating just using his approaches without measurement?
The problem, to me, is that he's not explained why the faster versions are faster (we don't know, because there's no disassembly), and the whole thing isn't reproducible because we don't know which compilers were used. For all we know, another compiler does better with the "slower" code.
They're trained in EE, not programming, and do enough to get through their design.
My EE friends definitely know assembly language. They also know that many chips don't have divide instructions, and at the very least, that the compiler can use other ops to work around that. Even for EEs who don't know, I don't think showing them the decomposition of the division would make their brains explode.
Debugging arm or mips assembler is considerably different than x86.
[citation needed]. I'll admit I've not done any work with MIPS, but I didn't have any trouble with ARM. Sure, there's Thumb mode, but that's pretty much it.
The problem, to me, is that he's not explained why the faster versions are faster (we don't know, because there's no disassembly), and the whole thing isn't reproducible because we don't know which compilers were used. For all we know, another compiler does better with the "slower" code.
They're trained in EE, not programming, and do enough to get through their design.
My EE friends definitely know assembly language. They also know that many chips don't have divide instructions, and at the very least, that the compiler can use other ops to work around that. Even for EEs who don't know, I don't think showing them the decomposition of the division would make their brains explode.
Debugging arm or mips assembler is considerably different than x86.
[citation needed]. I'll admit I've not done any work with MIPS, but I didn't have any trouble with ARM. Sure, there's Thumb mode, but that's pretty much it.