From:	Ludvig Larsson <ludvig AT club-internet DOT fr>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: superslow simpel rep stosl, why?
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:17:49 +0200
Organization:	Faas-Goldhart
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<362B824C.6A9B@club-internet.fr>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 981019102612 DOT 7874P-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	toulouse-camichel1-147.club-internet.fr
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	front1.grolier.fr 908821841 25147 194.158.122.147 (19 Oct 1998 18:30:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	19 Oct 1998 18:30:41 GMT
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 3.01C-CLUB (Win95; I)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Ludvig Larsson wrote:
> 
> > On my AmdK6-2 300mhz it takes 0.006 sec. which gives about
> > 100millions of bytes/sec. Quite a bit right!
> > But should it take 3 clockcykles to clear each byte?
> > I'm clearing quadwords...
> >
> > I'm using asm(rep stosl).
> >
> > Is this normal?
> 
> Why not?  On a 486 STOSD is documented to require 5 clocks per move,
> so it doesn't strike me as terribly wrong to get 3 clocks on K6.  Keep
> in mind that it doesn't just move the dword, it also increments a
> pointer and decrements a count as it goes.
> 
But? As I'm clearing d-words, each stosl takes 12 cycles...

I have trought of a way so I don't need to clear the z-buffer, but it
should be really nice to push the processor under the "4-times to slow"
limit.

Ludvig Larsson

- Raw text -