On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:47:14PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> I'm unclear as to what "vectorization" means as used here. My
> understanding of "vector" is as a synonym for "line", thus implying loop
> unrolling of some form or another, which will increase size. As I
> explained in the grandparent, I believe such optimizations to be
> counterproductive on modern processors due to the extreme cost of cache
> misses as opposed to slight cycle inefficiencies.
>
> I am however aware that vectorization has a somewhat different meaning in
> programming terms than the above, but am not sufficiently educated on the
> topic to make an informed choice, so I've simply left gcc to go with its
> default choice given my overall stated intention of -Os.
>
> If you can sufficiently explain the concept to me such that I
> understand enough about it to feel comfortable going with other than the
> default (which means I can explain why I chose it and why it won't
> interfere with my overall strategy as outlined in the grandparent, or is
> worth it even if it does), I'd be very grateful! =8^)
Back in the day, vectorization was, I believe, a supercomputer SIMD
(single instruction multiple data) concept, where instruction operands
were pointers to data, so it would, for instance, add two arrays of
numbers to produce a third array. Isn't this what the Altivec
instructions do?
I do not claim to know this is what gcc means, or even if the current
concept of vectorization has any relation to Yee Olde Concepte.
--
... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
--
[email protected] mailing list
