Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 00:41:13 +0200 To: David Whysong Cc: Marc Lehmann , pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Optimization question Message-ID: <19990511004113.N22062@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: David Whysong , Marc Lehmann , pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <19990510201927 DOT E10032 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from David Whysong on Mon, May 10, 1999 at 03:34:44PM -0700 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.7 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 03:34:44PM -0700, David Whysong wrote: > Theory doesn't seem to fit the data very well then. :-) I have gained > nearly a factor of two in speed after doing some CSE by hand. Even on the > simple code fragment I posted, a little "hand optimizing" significantly > reduced the number of fmul ops. As far as I can see, very little or no CSE > was being done at all. Have you benchmarked it? fmuls are not really slower than fadds, for example. However, if you can manage to get a (sensibly sized ;) example of where cse fails I'd be happy to look into it! -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |