From: Pascal Cuoq <Pascal.Cuoq@cea.fr>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Ocamlopt x86-32 and SSE2
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:10:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B1CD096B-910F-41B7-BBE8-5F2EA0DB49AF@cea.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090511043120.976EBBC67@yquem.inria.fr>
Here's an idea, I don't know if it is relevant, but it looks that
it could be a good compromise (option 2.5, if you will): how about
implementing floating-point operations as function calls
(the functions could be written in C and be part of the runtime library)
when the SSE2 instructions are not available? Is that simpler than
option 3?
Matteo Frigo <athena@fftw.org> wrote:
> Do you guys have any sort of empirical evidence that scalar SSE2
> math is
> faster than plain old x87?
It's not speed I am after personally, but a correct implementation
of IEEE 754's round-to-nearest mode for doubles.
Also, the satisfying knowledge that the code of the compiler I use
is as tight is it can be and that I could understand it if I had to
some day.
Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Note that you can use the same argument to justify not optimizing
> the x86
> backend because power users should be using the (much more
> performant) x64
> code gen.
I don't know where you get "much more performant" from.
For what I do, speed of floating-point operations is irrelevant, but
not the speed of the whole application. The whole application is
slightly slower (~10%) with the larger data words despite the improved
instruction set. Plus, memory is also a concern, and for users who
have less than 6GiB of memory, there are actually more addressable
data words in x86 mode.
Pascal
next parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-11 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090511043120.976EBBC67@yquem.inria.fr>
2009-05-11 7:10 ` Pascal Cuoq [this message]
2009-05-12 9:37 ` [Caml-list] " Xavier Leroy
2009-05-12 10:04 ` Sylvain Le Gall
2009-05-25 8:23 ` Sylvain Le Gall
2009-05-12 12:40 ` [Caml-list] " Richard Jones
2009-05-13 22:30 ` Florian Weimer
[not found] <20090509100004.353ADBC5C@yquem.inria.fr>
2009-05-09 11:38 ` CUOQ Pascal
2009-05-10 1:52 ` [Caml-list] " Goswin von Brederlow
2009-05-10 8:56 ` CUOQ Pascal
2009-04-28 19:36 Ocamlopt code generator question Dmitry Bely
2009-05-05 9:24 ` [Caml-list] " Xavier Leroy
2009-05-05 9:41 ` Dmitry Bely
2009-05-08 10:21 ` [Caml-list] Ocamlopt x86-32 and SSE2 Xavier Leroy
2009-05-10 11:04 ` David MENTRE
2009-05-11 3:43 ` Stefan Monnier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B1CD096B-910F-41B7-BBE8-5F2EA0DB49AF@cea.fr \
--to=pascal.cuoq@cea.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox