Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:22:00 -0500 From: Kenneth Culver <culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386 Message-ID: <20040225142200.4bysswc44g0csss0@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> In-Reply-To: <20040225190052.GJ7567@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <1077658664.92943.15.camel@.rochester.rr.com> <20040225110754.hcogcccokg84k44k@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <20040225183234.GG7567@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040225135035.v66800cwkgw08wwc@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> <20040225190052.GJ7567@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:50:35PM -0500, Kenneth Culver wrote: >> Ok well maybe not with amd64, but I thought that when you add registers > ^^^^^^^ > > This is the key word here -- "thought". No one has done any real analsys > and thus we can't say jack. While at first thought compiling for a large > number of GPR's could be more time consuming; I think there are other > phases of code generation where the process is slower due to lack of a > large number of GPR's. Fair enough. > >> Like on PowerPC or Alpha or whatever there are a LOT more GPR's than >> there are on even Athlon64... I guess only having 2x the GPR's doesn't >> make a whole lot of difference... > > PowerPC and Alpha are also RISC and have other scheduling issues for the > code generator to handle. > I knew they were RISC, but I didn't know that there were that many other issues in addition to just the GPR's, or I thought that the issues stemmed from having more GPR's. Anyway, Thanks for the info. Ken
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040225142200.4bysswc44g0csss0>