Re: Short-circuiting in C

From	Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com>
Subject	Re: Short-circuiting in C
Date	2011-05-28 14:08 +0100
Message-Id	<pan.2011.05.28.13.07.29.516000@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
References	<irm4et$66d$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ln62oxw829.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <irmcij$ro9$1@speranza.aioe.org> <irmuo5$u9t$1@dont-email.me> <94b8ekFsnU1@mid.individual.net>
Organization	Zen Internet

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 28 May 2011 03:28:20 +0000, blmblm wrote:

> I don't get the impression at all that the OP wants a, b, and
> c evaluated in parallel.  As I understand it, he just wants to
> be sure that there is no branching involved in the evaluation
> of the condition (a && b && c).  I admit I don't have a clear
> understanding of the platform he's targeting, but it sounds like
> it somehow involves multiple processing elements [*] executing the
> same compiled code, and under those circumstances I can vaguely
> imagine that performance might be better if all these processing
> elements execute exactly the same instructions (i.e., no branches).

I was (initially) under the impression that he wanted consistency between
CPU and GPU performance, and GPUs can't do short-circuit evaluation.

On a SIMD architecture (e.g. a GPU), you only have one program counter for
all processing units, so a branch where the test result can vary between
units cannot be implemented in the conventional manner (by modifying the
program counter). An if-else construct involves executing both branches on
all units; each unit ignores the instructions in one of the branches
depending upon whether the test is true or false on that particular unit.

OTOH, the OP may have just misunderstood what "branches are slow" means in
the context of GPU programming. They're slow in the sense that branching
over a set of instructions takes just as long as executing them. That
doesn't mean that tricks which eliminate branches will necessarily be any
faster.

Thread

Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 13:58 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-26 11:09 -0700
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-05-26 20:22 +0200
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-26 11:35 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 18:45 +0000
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-31 20:31 +0100
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 14:51 -0400
        Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 15:10 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 21:35 -0400
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 23:38 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:28 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:01 +0000
            Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:02 +0000
        Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 12:55 -0700
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 16:17 -0400
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-26 21:28 -0400
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-27 05:06 +0000
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-05-27 17:48 +0200
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-27 21:31 -0400
              Re: Short-circuiting in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 03:28 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-27 23:43 -0400
                Re: Short-circuiting in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 19:31 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-30 00:28 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 23:08 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-31 18:30 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:08 -0700
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-28 14:08 +0100
                Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 12:52 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 19:22 +0000
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-31 21:07 -0400
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-11 17:07 +0100
                Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 12:57 -0500
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-26 14:36 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-26 14:39 -0400
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 13:28 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Urist Sethkab <uristqwerty@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 15:34 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-27 10:08 -0400
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-27 07:56 -0700
          Re: Short-circuiting in C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 20:14 -0700
            Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-27 20:26 -0700
              Re: Short-circuiting in C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-27 20:44 -0700
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 00:06 +0100
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-05-26 21:34 -0400
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-27 07:41 +0100
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-26 21:21 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:41 -0500
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:03 -0500
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:37 -0500
  Re: Short-circuiting in C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:01 -0700
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-27 16:08 +0000
      Re: Short-circuiting in C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:46 -0700
        Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 13:27 -0700
  Re: Short-circuiting in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-28 09:44 -0400
    Re: Short-circuiting in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 12:15 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-28 17:07 -0400
  Re: Short-circuiting in C "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-05-29 07:25 +0000
  Re: Short-circuiting in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-05-31 18:40 +0000
    Re: Short-circuiting in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:48 -0700
      Re: Short-circuiting in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:05 -0400

csiph-web