Lab7.txt

Unoptimized
	NUM_NODES=10:		ASM: 0 microseconds;		C: 0 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=100:		ASM: 1 microsecond;		C: 1 microsecond
	NUM_NODES=1000:		ASM: 4 microseconds;		C: 10 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=10000:	ASM: 40 microseconds;		C: 113 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=100000:	ASM: 386 microseconds;		C: 914 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=1000000:	ASM: 4202 microseconds;		C: 6561 microseconds
ASM likely took less time to run than C because it is more efficient, due to the fact that we have much more precise control over the structure of programs at the assembly language than with something like C

Optimized:
	NUM_NODES=10:		ASM: 3205 microseconds;		C: 6862 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=100:		ASM: 3204 microseconds;		C: 6869 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=1000:		ASM: 3299 microseconds;		C: 6958 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=10000:	ASM: 3219 microseconds;		C: 6889 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=100000:	ASM: 3233 microseconds;		C: 6923 microseconds
	NUM_NODES=1000000:	ASM: 3231 microseconds;		C: 6880 microseconds
Again, ASM likely took less time because it's a more precise language to code in.  One way to make ASM faster would be to only opimize the code if it would help, as in, which would only be useful if there were more than 100,000 nodes, because for any fewer, ASM runs better unoptimized.  This may be possible to do with macros, or commands, perhaps.

Number of Instructions:
	Unopimized:		ASM: 10 instructions;		C: 35 instructions
	Opimized:		ASM: 10 instructions;		C: 35 instructions
Interestingly, the number of instructions for reverse_asm and reverse_c do not change based on the number of nodes, or the Opimization