[rerdavies]

And it's probable that the developer is comparing code compiled at -O0 (no optimization) against hand-coded assembler, like they did the last time they claimed a 90x speed up.

So just to to summary: either a 100x, or a 100% speedup (depending on which source)

- comparing hand-coded assembler vs. unoptimized C code.

- on a function that was poorly written in the first place.

- in code that's so rarely used that nobody could be bothered to fix it for decades.

- and even then, a tiny function whose overall CPU cost was about 2% of CPU cost to perform the obsolete task that nobody cared about enough to fix.

- so basically code that fails the profile before optimize rule, and should never have been optimized in the first place.

I think that covers it.