On Sunday 12 June 2005 12.43, Tomas Hajny wrote:
As far as I know, mov instruction doesn't set zero flag. Zero length
is checked earlier in the code, though, so it doesn't matter for that
- just the jz instruction seems to be useless there.
You are right of course, i am not very familiar
On 13 jun 2005, at 08:46, Marco van de Voort wrote:
There also is jecx, (jeecx ? :-),
jecxz
but I don't know if it is faster than
writing it out.
Pretty much all of those old complex instructions (enter, loop,
jecxz, xlatb, ...) are slower than the alternatives.
Jonas
On 13 jun 2005, at 09:13, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I was thinking about this before I relpied, and knew this was the
case for
P5-P6 core. However is this verified/documented for generation 7
CPU's ?
(Athlon/Netburst ?)
Why would they suddenly start spending silicon on making
On 13 jun 2005, at 08:46, Marco van de Voort wrote:
There also is jecx, (jeecx ? :-),
jecxz
but I don't know if it is faster than
writing it out.
Pretty much all of those old complex instructions (enter, loop,
jecxz, xlatb, ...) are slower than the alternatives.
I was thinking
On 13 jun 2005, at 09:13, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I was thinking about this before I relpied, and knew this was the
case for
P5-P6 core. However is this verified/documented for generation 7
CPU's ?
(Athlon/Netburst ?)
Why would they suddenly start spending silicon on making
Anybody followed the discussion, e.g. which version should be included :)?
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Some more experience:
7a: like 7 but ansi string
9a: like 9, without loop instruction
10: like 6, loop in assembler
10a like 10, without loop instruction
(PII, 350MHz)
Kilix:
lowercase execution time: 335536
lowercase 1 execution time: 369539
lowercase 2 execution time: 377384
lowercase 3
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef L505:
http://dennishomepage.gugs-cats.dk/LowerCaseChallenge.htm
LowerCaseShaPas2_c
This one here is in Pascal, using GOTO and LABEL which consistently work fast
on
both -Og and -OG
But no one wants to maintain a GOTO and a LABEL..
[LowerCaseShaPas2_c] was
9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Patch to speed up Uppercase/Lowercase functions
On Sunday 12 June 2005 00.23, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Try also with register variables on (-O???r), it will probably more
closely match Kylix' results then in case of the loop versions.
Kylix:
lowercase
I use fastcode stuff some times, I just never spend too much time figuring out
how all the code works.
The way I do it is I create my software application first in Pascal.. Then if I
find a huge bottleneck, I pull in a optimized function in place of the old one..
even if I dont' understand the
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:36:44 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
The most expensive operation in the whole LowerCase function is the
UniqueString allocation for when the string changes. For the case
where the string is already in lower case it is important not call
UniqueString. It makes a 600%
That is why I use pchar and one uniquestring;
It prevents all these automated uniquestring calls.
Why call it when it might not be necessary??
My point is that you can make the function MUCH faster for the case
where the function doesn't modify the string by not calling
UniqueString at
Op Sun, 12 Jun 2005, schreef Uberto Barbini:
That is why I use pchar and one uniquestring;
It prevents all these automated uniquestring calls.
Why call it when it might not be necessary??
My point is that you can make the function MUCH faster for the case
where the function
From: Martin Schreiber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FPC developers' list fpc-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [fpc-devel] Patch to speed up
Uppercase/Lowercase functions
Date sent: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:12:44 +0200
Some more test results
Op Sun, 12 Jun 2005, schreef Uberto Barbini:
If I understood well, with modern processor an unpredicatable branch
(i.e. one with similar probability) is much more time-consuming that an
unnecessary function call.
Yes, but the call needs to do memory allocation and a string copy, so
On 12 Jun 2005, at 13:20, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Borland's compiler does register variables better than FPC and can do
induction variables. This has a large impact on the code generation in
general.
I thought I saw that FPC beat Kylix in several cases in the timings
that were posted.
Oh,
I found the bug.
There should be:
Inc(byte(P^), 32);
instead of previously posted:
Inc(byte(P^));
Here is correct implementation:
Function Lowercase41(Const S : String) : String;
var
i: Integer;
P: PChar;
Changed: boolean;
begin
Changed:=False;
P := PChar(S);
for i
Borland's compiler does register variables better than FPC and can do
induction variables. This has a large impact on the code generation in
general.
|I thought I saw that FPC beat Kylix in several cases in the timings
|that were posted.
I saw this too, so what do you mean Daniël .. in the
Op Sun, 12 Jun 2005, schreef L505:
Borland's compiler does register variables better than FPC and can do
induction variables. This has a large impact on the code generation in
general.
|I thought I saw that FPC beat Kylix in several cases in the timings
|that were posted.
I saw this
Hello,
I was looking at this discussion and decided to put my 5 cents :)
I made 2 fastest modifications based on Lowercase4.
Lowercase41 is optimized for input which is already lowercased.
Lowercase42 slower if input is already lowercased and a bit faster for mixed
case input.
The best
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Once. Since it is the start value, that is even quite logical. However,
even if it appeared in the end condition it would also be only
calculated once at the start of the loop. This is even required for
correctness, because it's possible to do something like
i := 5
for
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Christian Iversen:
On Friday 10 June 2005 17:16, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority, but
nevertheless this patch improves the speed of the sysutils.uppercase and
lowercase functions.
A
Op Fri, 10 Jun 2005, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority,
It depends if someone does it ;)
but
nevertheless this patch improves the speed of the sysutils.uppercase and
lowercase functions.
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 10 Jun 2005, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority,
It depends if
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Daniël Mantione:
So, judge for yourself. I think this is worth the 256 byte lookup table.
?
0.948/0.999 = 95 %
So, we 5% speed improvement from using a table; this is much worse than I
thought and can easily be undone in real world by the increased cache
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
If we're gonna hold a discussion like this for every optimilisation, it
isn't worth the effort imho. But now we're busy with it:
Well. Discussion is nice, but what does the real world show ?
To compare, I made 6 versions of Lowercase:
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
If we're gonna hold a discussion like this for every optimilisation, it
isn't worth the effort imho. But now we're busy with it:
Well. Discussion is nice, but what does the real world
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Danil Mantione wrote:
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
If we're gonna hold a discussion like this for every optimilisation, it
isn't worth the effort imho. But now we're busy with it:
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
I'm not contesting that; but here I think that the use of pascal
is more important, for porting's sake.
As long as the Pascal version remains available (for exactly
the those portability reasons), I am not against it. Instead, I hope
someone
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:33:57 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
To compare, I made 6 versions of Lowercase:
Result on an AMD 64 3000:
Lowercase time to execute: 00:00:01.563
Lowercase2 Time to execute: 00:00:01.363
Lowercase3 Time to execute: 00:00:01.394
Lowercase4 Time to execute: 00:00:00.999
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Danil Mantione wrote:
Op Sat, 11 Jun 2005, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
That is why I use pchar and one uniquestring;
It prevents all these automated uniquestring calls.
Isn't it a better idea to build a new string, i.e. we setlength result and
copy
Some more test results with PII 350MHz and
two additional implementations with lookup table:
Kylix:
lowercase execution time: 336887
lowercase 1 execution time: 380923
lowercase 2 execution time: 375411
lowercase 3 execution time: 369814
lowercase 4 execution time: 320665
lowercase 5 execution
Where do I find the cpu/cpu-timer unit guys...
Directory? Download link?
Thank you.
|
| On 12 Jun 2005, at 00:12, Martin Schreiber wrote:
|
| Some more test results with PII 350MHz and
| two additional implementations with lookup table:
|
| Try also with register variables on (-O???r), it
| Where do I find the cpu/cpu-timer unit guys...
| Directory? Download link?
|
| Thank you.
|
Is this the one? ;-)
http://members.yline.com/~tom_at_work/
|
| |
| | On 12 Jun 2005, at 00:12, Martin Schreiber wrote:
| |
| | Some more test results with PII 350MHz and
| | two additional
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FPC developers' list fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Patch to speed up Uppercase/Lowercase functions
On Sunday 12 June 2005 00.23, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Try also with register variables on (-O???r), it will probably more
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority, but
nevertheless this patch improves the speed of the sysutils.uppercase and
lowercase functions.
I fail to see how changing a while loop to a for loop improves speed
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority, but
nevertheless this patch improves the speed of the sysutils.uppercase and
lowercase functions.
I fail to see how changing a while loop
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
I don't know if rtl-optimilisation patches have a large priority, but
nevertheless this patch improves the speed of the sysutils.uppercase and
lowercase functions.
I fail to see how changing a while loop to a for loop improves speed ?
I could understand if you'd use a
Jonas Maebe wrote:
[..]
Once. Since it is the start value, that is even quite logical. However,
even if it appeared in the end condition it would also be only
calculated once at the start of the loop. This is even required for
correctness, because it's possible to do something like
i := 5
39 matches
Mail list logo
