At least my measurements are correct, in the sense that the code is
executed.
> > probably optimising the timing loop out of existence.
In that case the difference should me much larger. No, the unrolled version
is faster (at least with my compiler).
> > Either that, or it is unrolling a loop inside an inline
> > asm statement, which I don't believe.
No, richards implementation is very simple-minded (of course, as it was only
meant to show how easy it is to be faster than simple-minded C).
With that comparison I wanted to show that its very dangerous to make
blanket statements like "assembly is faster than c".
> > Also, on a PPro, Richard's code is probably 1.29 times
> > faster than what we already have.
I don't see why it would be faster. Please note that you can do the same
(loop unrolling) with the assembly implementation, making it faster than c
again.
> > Now that Richard has proven that he is a good assembler
> > hacker, it would be nice if he (or someone else) made
This has not proved anything, except that his example was badly chosen, and
can't be used to make any decisions about using c or assembly.
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/