caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


       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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).