Message-Id:	<m0ymGxg-000S3qC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com,
	lubaldo AT adinet DOT com DOT uy
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:09:57 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: 64k demo
References:	<m0ylxKP-000S41C AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980617090437.18792E-100000@is>

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > > At the very least, you should look at the 
> > > code emitted by the compiler (gcc -S) and show that it indeed generates 
> > > different code in these cases, and that the differences can indeed 
> > > justify the speed variation you observed.
> > 
> > Yes that's the best thing but Ivan doesn't know assembler so isn't a big help 
> > for he.
> 
> Then somebody else should do that.  I have found through hard experience 
> that runtime behavior of any non-trivial code is far from being obvious.  
> You need to look at the machine instructions to understand why two 
> different versions run at different speeds, and even then it is not 
> always clear, with all the complexities of code/data cache, secondary 
> cache, non-cacheable memory regions, etc.  Theory alone is *certainly* not 
> enough.
> 
> > Intel processors have only few registers, that's too sad but is the fact. Small 
> > loops sometimes uses ALL the registers so 1 more register can do a BIG 
> > difference in performance. Using static arrays you save registers.
> 
> This is theory.  How, if at all, it applies to the case in point, remains 
> to be shown.  I have spent too much time trying to explain away 
> performance differences between semantically identical programs, and lost 
> all faith in such theoretical arguments in the process.

That isn't theory, that's what I got with at least 6 of the loops in my 
plasmas. I saw the Ivan's code and this "theory" applies to it too.
That isn't a theory taked from a book that a fact of the Intel's architecture. 
When the optimizer works OK (and it works ok on half of the cases).
 
> The least we should do is to look at the code produced by the compiler. 
> Even if it does use an additional register, that doesn't necessarily 
> explain the performance difference. 

I agree, but I'm talking after a look at the Ivan's code.

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013

- Raw text -