Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>