Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:52:03 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: using cmov* not that great Message-ID: <19991018215203.B612@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 32 DOT 19990926231125 DOT 00c757a0 AT pop DOT xs4all DOT nl> <380A4183 DOT B3794352 AT lycosmail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <380A4183.B3794352@lycosmail.com>; from Adam Schrotenboer on Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 05:37:08PM -0400 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.12 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version 2.95.1 19990816 (release)) Sender: 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 Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 05:37:08PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote: > I can not thing of any (intel x86 at least) cpu that can use such. Sure it can. One can reorder code that it suits static prediction. > Itanium (stupid name, Merced was better) however I do believe will be even better, it can just execute the if branch speculatively and then use the equivalent of cmov/cadd. calculating two much in many cases hurts less than a single jump. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT opengroup DOT org |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |