Here's my benchmarking file anyway, it may prove useful.
Alan.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>> -Getters and setter are a hint of ill vectorized code.
>
>
Hey,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> -Getters and setter are a hint of ill vectorized code.
In this particular scenario, I'm not sure how i can get rid of the use
of getters/setters unless I use even more unsafe code. I don't know
whether i
Hi Alan,
There a couple of issues with your code, let me get on them:
-Until recently (last night), getters were not accelerated, which causes a
significant
slowdown. I fixed this in r118899. The generated code is not as good as it
could be,
but this will be fixed eventually.
-Setters are still
I forgot to mention that I'm on a 1.86GHZ core2duo and i was running
with --optimize=simd.
Alan.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found a bit of code in the SHA1 implementation which i thought was
> ideal for SIMD optimisations. However, unless i resor
I found a bit of code in the SHA1 implementation which i thought was
ideal for SIMD optimisations. However, unless i resort to unsafe code,
it's actually substantially slower! I've attached three
implementations of the method here. The original, the safe SIMD and
the unsafe SIMD. The runtimes are a