Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41336
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! |
| Date | 2015-08-16 13:47 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2015Aug16.154757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | <ac218bc6-a9cb-47da-b69f-7a612373c302@googlegroups.com> |
"Ilya V. Vasilyev" <arvi1973@gmail.com> writes:
> At my opinion, integer stack is obsole=
>te in 2015 and the future of Forth is with floating point. Modern computers=
> are fast enough to make floating point the main data type.
I did a little experiment for evaluating the performance impact. The
idea is that the worst case for this kind of design is probably a
chain of dependent @s, i.e., something like this microbenchmark:
perf stat gforth-fast -e "variable x x x ! \
: foo x 100000000 0 do @ @ @ @ @ loop drop ; \
foo bye"
On a Core i3--3227U (Ivy Bridge) this takes 2G cycles, i.e., 4 cycles
per @ (this agrees with the D-cache latency of 4 cycles on the Ivy
Bridge).
So let's do a variant that goes through FP values: @ would expand to
f>s f@, etc. To make this compile to good code, I have added a static
superinstruction for f>s f@ for this experiment. The benchmark code
now is:
perf stat gforth-fast -e "fvariable x x s>f x f! \
: foo x s>f 100000000 0 do f>s f@ f>s f@ f>s f@ f>s f@ f>s f@ loop fdrop ; \
foo bye"
This takes 5G cycles, i.e., 10 cycles per @ replacement. I.e., a
slowdown factor of 2.5 for this microbenchmark. I guess that the
slowdown will be less for most applications (dependent adds could be
worse). The code for each @ (or its replacement looks as follows):
@ f>s f@
mov (%r14),%r14 cvttsd2si %xmm15,%rax
add $0x8,%rbx add $0x10,%rbx
movsd (%rax),%xmm15
The adds to rbx keep the VM instruction pointer up-to-date, but are
performed in parallel with the other stuff and therfore don't cost
performance in this latency-measuring benchmarks.
So if you can live with a Forth system that's slower by a factor of 2
or so, this is certainly an interesting variant.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "Ilya V. Vasilyev" <arvi1973@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-15 20:42 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "Ilya V. Vasilyev" <arvi1973@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 02:13 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-18 12:09 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:18 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-19 08:22 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-19 03:38 -0400
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "Ilya V. Vasilyev" <arvi1973@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:21 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 21:07 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-16 06:52 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-16 14:19 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 05:52 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-16 14:42 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! dylan.mcnamee@gmail.com - 2015-09-21 12:02 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-22 00:34 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-16 12:08 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 15:17 -0400
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-16 07:54 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-16 15:04 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-16 23:56 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-08-17 05:57 -0500
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-08-17 13:52 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 05:00 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 05:29 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-18 09:10 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-17 14:50 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-17 19:42 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-17 23:16 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-18 01:00 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-18 01:17 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-18 10:12 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Александр Стадниченко <stadnichenko.a.s@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 08:12 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Александр Стадниченко <stadnichenko.a.s@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 08:35 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-26 21:23 +0200
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Александр Стадниченко <stadnichenko.a.s@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 09:55 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Александр Стадниченко <stadnichenko.a.s@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-08-16 08:37 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-17 20:17 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 00:49 -0400
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 23:00 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-18 06:25 +0000
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-18 08:39 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 12:09 -0400
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 01:31 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! "Ilya V. Vasilyev" <arvi1973@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 17:47 -0700
Re: Forth without integer data stack. It is even better! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-12 18:06 -0700
csiph-web