This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: FWD: FLOATING-POINT CONSISTENCY, -FFLOAT-STORE, AND X86


Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes:

 > Harvey J. Stein wrote:
 > > 
 > > Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes:
 > > 
 > >  > I must say that I am *not* amused.  This discussion goes into a
 > >  > direction that will leave us with a compiler that, although
 > >  > numerical-politically correct, will be generating such slow code as
 > >  > to be totally unuseable.
 > > 
 > > Do you really think it'll make it that much slower?  If you're doing
 > > computations, how much time is spent dumping & restoring FP registers?
 > > Is dumping 10 bytes instead of 8 bytes (current practice) going to
 > > have a substantial impact in total run time?  You've mentioned in
 > > other posts a factor of 2, as if because it's 16 byte aligned it has
 > > to move 16 bytes of data.  But even if it's 16 byte aligned, it's
 > > still only 10 bytes of data, so why should it take 2x as long?
 > 
 > For a thoroughly 32-bit application like mine, 16-byte spills are four
 > times as large as necessary - and yes, having all this data move in and
 > out of registers does have a cost (think cache footprint).

That's true, but, like I said, it's 10 byte, not 16 byte, and it's vs
the current 8 byte.  There's currently no option of doing 4 byte
spills.

-- 
Harvey J. Stein
BFM Financial Research
hjstein@bfr.co.il


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]