> MacBook Pro, 10.6.6, Core 2 Duo
> ProtoContext ProtoTransform
> ProtoLambda Loop
> GCC 4.2.1 (Apple) : 5.3565438 5.3721942
> 126.38458 1.3657978
> GCC 4.4.5 : 1.8878364
Not sure what happened to those tables. I'll try again.
MacBook Pro, 10.6.6, Core 2 Duo
ProtoContextProtoTransform ProtoLambda Loop
GCC 4.2.1 (Apple) : 5.3565438 5.3721942 126.38458
1.3657978
GCC 4.4.5 : 1.8878364 1.8845548
On Feb 20, 2011, at 4:43 AM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> On 20/02/11 12:41, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> On 2/20/2011 6:40 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
>>> On 20/02/11 12:31, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
It is amazing that the proto expression is faster then the naive one.
The compiler must really love the way p
On 20/02/11 12:41, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 2/20/2011 6:40 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
On 20/02/11 12:31, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
It is amazing that the proto expression is faster then the naive one.
The compiler must really love the way proto evaluates an expression.
I still dont really know why. Usua
On 2/20/2011 6:40 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> On 20/02/11 12:31, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
>> It is amazing that the proto expression is faster then the naive one.
>> The compiler must really love the way proto evaluates an expression.
>
> I still dont really know why. Usual speed-up in our use cases her
On 20/02/11 12:31, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
It is amazing that the proto expression is faster then the naive one.
The compiler must really love the way proto evaluates an expression.
I still dont really know why. Usual speed-up in our use cases here is
like ranging from 10 to 50%.
On 02/20/2011 12:08 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> On 20/02/11 12:03, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
>> On 02/20/2011 12:02 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
>>> On 20/02/11 11:55, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
On 02/20/2011 11:57 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
It gcc 4.4 on a 64bit machine. Of course, I compile with -O3.
>
On 20/02/11 12:03, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
On 02/20/2011 12:02 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
On 20/02/11 11:55, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
On 02/20/2011 11:57 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
It gcc 4.4 on a 64bit machine. Of course, I compile with -O3.
Ding! welcome to gcc-4.4 64bits compiler hellfest.
Try 4.5, 4.
On 02/20/2011 12:02 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> On 20/02/11 11:55, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
>> On 02/20/2011 11:57 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> It gcc 4.4 on a 64bit machine. Of course, I compile with -O3.
>>
> Ding! welcome to gcc-4.4 64bits compiler hellfest.
> Try 4.5, 4.4 64bits can't inlien for w/e re
On 20/02/11 11:55, Karsten Ahnert wrote:
On 02/20/2011 11:57 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
It gcc 4.4 on a 64bit machine. Of course, I compile with -O3.
Ding! welcome to gcc-4.4 64bits compiler hellfest.
Try 4.5, 4.4 64bits can't inlien for w/e reason.
___
On 20/02/11 11:57, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 2/20/2011 5:52 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
1/ how do you measure performances ? Anything which is not the median of
1-5K runs is meaningless.
You can see how he measures it in the code he posted.
I clicked send too fast :p
2/ Don't use context, transform
On 02/20/2011 11:57 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 2/20/2011 5:52 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
>> 1/ how do you measure performances ? Anything which is not the median of
>> 1-5K runs is meaningless.
>
> You can see how he measures it in the code he posted.
>
>> 2/ Don't use context, transform are usuall
On 2/20/2011 5:52 PM, Joel Falcou wrote:
> 1/ how do you measure performances ? Anything which is not the median of
> 1-5K runs is meaningless.
You can see how he measures it in the code he posted.
> 2/ Don't use context, transform are usually better optimized by compilers
That really shouldn't
1/ how do you measure performances ? Anything which is not the median of
1-5K runs is meaningless.
2/ Don't use context, transform are usually better optimized by compilers
3/ are you using gcc on a 64 bits system ? On this configuration a gcc
bug prevent proto to be inlined.
__
14 matches
Mail list logo
