Mail Archives: djgpp/2010/11/26/06:30:18
On Nov 25, 11:25=A0pm, Rugxulo <rugx DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Hi, note that I don't have any Atoms nor am I a professional
> programmer, but ....
>
> On Nov 25, 1:39=A0am, philippe <philippe DOT meyn DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When I try my program on a CPU ATOM N270 @ 1,6Ghz, The program is very
> > slow. Exemple : I Copy 32000 value in memory. On a cpu Celerom M
> > @1,6Ghz it take 270 us and on ATOM it take 2856 us. My OS is FreeDos.
> > the program is compiled with djgpp.
> > Have you got an idea ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_atomhttp://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?=
id=3D36331
>
> All I remember hearing was everybody comparing it to the 486 (in-order
> execution), no superscalar, no out-of-order, just vaguely
> "slow" ("fast P3 speeds at best"). At least that's what I heard, so I
> could be wrong. Some of the newer ones are allegedly better, but
> again, they aren't like typical desktop x86 processors, hence they
> don't act like it.
>
> More specifically, Atom support in GCC was only officially added in
> 4.5.0, which DJGPP doesn't have. By default DJGPP (still) uses -
> mtune=3Dpentium (aka, i586), which maybe isn't that ideal. However,
> having said that, I'd be extremely surprised if -mtune=3Di486 did much
> of anything, if at all, esp. for your Atom. Seems GCC never cared too
> too much about 486 (alignment only?) and certainly cares less nowadays
> even.
>
> If you really wanted, I guess? you could compile on Linux
> (distrowatch.com says Fedora yes, Ubuntu only 4.4.4) with GCC 4.5.1
> (or whatever) -mtune=3Datom and usehttp://agner.org/optimize/#objconv
> to convert it to COFF and then link it with DJGPP, if you think the
> new optimizations might help (doubt it but who knows).
>
> Another solution (horrible, I admit) would be to use handcode some SSE
> bullcrap, but that's usually more pain than it's worth (and hey, I
> like assembly!). We just can't program new computers effectively like
> they are the old ones we're used to.
>
> What exact versions are you using? GCC 4.4.4? DJGPP 2.0[34]? FreeDOS
> kernel 203[6789]? CWSDPMI r[567]? It all might make a difference. Of
> course, posting code would explain more too, but again, I don't have
> any similar (netbook) hardware to test for you.
thanks for your response.
so I use DJGPP 2.03 with gcc 3.4.1. when I compile with gcc4.4.4 I
have a error, gcc 4.2.3 it's OK but
I have no amelioration. CWSDPMI r5 and freedos kernel 2036.
I discovered that: When I used a call who is in another source file
that my source file test then the program is very slow but when I put
the call function in the same file that the source test then the
program is very fast. Why?
- Raw text -