Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #823Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: David Kastrup
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:40
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:40
31 lines
2890 bytes
2890 bytes
real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) writes: > Giuseppe Bilotta <oblomov@freemail.it> wrote: > > > Robert Myers wrote: > > > > > > A processor that requires special code to get decent > > > performance is not especially attractive, and if the P4 weren't an Intel > > > product, no one would be using it. > > > > Well, Intel CPUs have always suffered from bad design problems which > > require hoop-jumping, contorsionism and loop unrolling to get decent > > performance. > > Back in the days of the 4040, this wasn't considered a problem. 4040? We aren't by chance confusing this with the 4004? And the 8080 still was a rather clean design. The Z80, in constrast, was convenient but awful: the price you paid for some of its features was prohibitively high. For example, one popular way to clear out a memory area was do store a 0 into its first position, then use the LDIR instruction to fill the rest. 21 cycles per byte. Unroll to LDI, get 16 cycles. Of course, the fast wa was to place the stack pointer at the end of the area, and do repeated PUSH HL. 11 cycles for _two_ bytes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 01:44:02 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:40:19 +0200
Organization: T-Online
Lines: 31
Sender: dak@tupik.goethe.zz
Message-ID: <x5it4h2d58.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <MPG.1776a491ca74b5bf989edd@powernews.libero.it> <1fdyury.16lgkkf1d22zw9N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1024389694 01 5453 ycapb1FSTEAuXw 020618 08:41:34
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net
X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6,xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl
\!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i";/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^
Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50