From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 11:13:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B5116A4CE; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz [66.92.171.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4357143D2D; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:13:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz) Received: by mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Postfix, from userid 80) id D00E42D1; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from 141.156.69.109 ([141.156.69.109]) by www.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Horde) with HTTP for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:22:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20040225142200.4bysswc44g0csss0@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:22:00 -0500 From: Kenneth Culver To: obrien@FreeBSD.org 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> In-Reply-To: <20040225190052.GJ7567@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs cc: Jem Matzan cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Performance comparison, ULE vs 4BSD and AMD64 vs i386 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:13:41 -0000 Quoting David O'Brien : > 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