Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #59215
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) |
| Date | 2017-05-14 08:14 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2017May14.101423@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | <2017May13.093451@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <5ac7cdaa-eb0d-4aff-bf3d-08cae53db717@googlegroups.com> |
pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> writes:
>Well, if performance matters you have to configure the FP math package in S=
>wiftForth.
>In the Linux/macOS documentation the section 10.2.1 "Configuring the Floati=
>ng-Point Options"
>is TBD though. See the <SwiftForthDir>/lib/options/<platform>/fpconfig.f fi=
>le.
Cool that you have this much flexibility in configuring it. It's not
so great that you have to change the SwiftForth source files to
achieve that.
Using the hardware stack and no WAIT gives a pretty good-looking F+:
just an fadd instruction; remaining inefficiencies: FP words are not
inlined, and F@ and F! jump to DF@ DF!, which do the actual work. The
result is:
cycles
2012 94
1036M 1163M vfxlin Ndp387.fth
2222M 2949M gforth-fast
4860M 5086M SwiftForth HW stack, no WAIT
12434M 10193M SwiftForth SW stack, WAIT
Hmm, normally well-predicted calls, jumps and returns are pretty fast
(1 cycle) on these CPUs; that would explain 2050M cycles, but where is
the rest coming from? Maybe these CPUs don't like it if the calls and
returns occur too frequently; certainly the 4 cycles per dispatch
result for subroutine threading on the Core i7-4690K
<https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/threading/> points in that
direction.
- 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 2017: http://www.euroforth.org/ef17/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-13 07:34 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:16 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:49 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:38 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-13 15:08 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:51 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 07:32 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-14 02:46 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 14:57 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-15 19:11 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 08:14 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:58 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 07:01 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 06:10 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-15 01:49 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 14:33 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-15 13:44 +1000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-15 04:43 -0500
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 15:03 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-17 00:10 +1000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 09:04 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 15:54 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:53 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 02:34 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 22:48 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 06:51 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:29 -0700
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-17 11:07 +0000
Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 15:02 +0000
csiph-web