Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/11/22:12:53
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:38:55 +1000 (EST) leathm AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au
(Leath Muller) writes:
>Ummm...basically, to my knowledge anyway, and by my understanding of
>the
>doc's, your completely wrong. :) Code always goes I could be - I've
been wrong before :)
superscalar if it
>can
>because its _always_ in the cache (code _has_ to be in the cache to
>execute to start with, no?) and it will go superscalar if executed the
>first time too.
>
>Branches can be predicted following some basic rules...
Yes, but wrong predictions incur a 4-5 cycle penalty, don't they?
>
>Have your read the Pentium Programmers Guide? Its really cool if you
>haven't,
>and if you have, where does it say this stuff?
My library system doesn't have it yet (they don't even have the 486
programmer's guide yet! :), and I don't have the money for it. I got the
above from Abrash's Zen of Code Optimization, and it spent a lengthy
chapter just on making code go superscalar.
Of course, I haven't had the chance to time things to know for sure
whether the first iteration goes superscalar - but my timings (when I
occasionally get access to a Pentium) show that they usually do (bear in
mind, these are iterations of thousands of times, so usually is a pretty
big number). In either case, the first iteration wouldn't make too much
difference if you have a large loop value.
One point to make though: I have often been wrong before. It would be
no surprise if I was wrong again :)
...Chambers
- Raw text -