Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:43:30 +0200
From: Ronald de Man <deman AT win DOT tue DOT nl>
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: optimizing for k6
Message-ID: <19990814214330.A3812@win.tue.nl>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19990814040832 DOT 01181ec0 AT pop DOT xs4all DOT nl> <19990814183125 DOT 24893 AT atrey DOT karlin DOT mff DOT cuni DOT cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i
In-Reply-To: <19990814183125.24893@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>; from Jan Hubicka on Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 06:31:25PM +0200
X-Operating-System: Linux localhost 2.2.11 
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Isn't that mainly because of memory consumed by your program has decreased
> when you changed your datastructure? K6 is very sensitive about memory,
> because it have quite small caches and refills are more costy than on the
> Intel CPU familly.

If I'm not mistaken, the K6 is advertised to have 32k+32k L1 cache,
while CPU's by Intel mostly have 16k+16k. So your remark seems to
imply that these numbers are not comparable?

Ronald