Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #45199
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance |
| Date | 2016-01-30 13:59 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2016Jan30.145924@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | <2016Jan29.184253@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <87fuxfrfk4.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> The reference program took 165M cycles or 0.06s on a Xeon E3-1220....
>> 164587102 cycles # 0.000 M/sec
>> 80381803 instructions # 0.488 IPC
>> 518240 branch-misses # 0.000 M/sec
>> 21370347 L1-dcache-load-misses # 0.000 M/sec
>> 45603137 L1-dcache-loads # 0.000 M/sec
>
>On an i7-3770, gcc 4.7.2, perf 3.2.17, I get:
>
> 120962754 cycles:u # 0.000 GHz
> 99843302 instructions:u # 0.83 insns per cycle
> 658537 branch-misses:u
More instructions, more branch misses, less cycles. My guess is that
gcc-4.7.2 does something more efficient for the memcmp than the rep
that gcc 4.4.5 uses on the reference machine. That's one of the
things the students found: memcmp() is slower on the reference machine
than alternatives (it's really perverse that many groups replaced it
with strncmp() and got a speedup).
- 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.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-29 17:42 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-29 16:20 -0800
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-30 13:54 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-31 11:57 -0800
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-01 06:47 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:47 -0800
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-01 11:13 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-30 01:57 +0100
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-30 17:18 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-30 17:51 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-29 18:01 -0800
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-30 13:59 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-30 17:38 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-31 12:05 -0800
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-01 03:01 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-01 06:17 +0000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-31 21:27 -1000
Re: Forth dictionary implementation and performance hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-30 15:42 -0800
csiph-web