Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 09:22:29 07/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2003 at 10:17:38, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >In Genesis I heavily use the abs() function, and so tried to optimize it. >Instead of using the abs() function defined in <math.h>, I wrote the following >fucntion: > >long abs(long x) { > long y; > y = x >> 31; > return (x ^ y) - y; >} > >Testing it using a profiler, I found out that my implementation is about twice >slower than the math.h implementation of abs(). I haven't looked at the >implementation in math.h, but I can't see how a more optimized version of abs() >can be written. > >Any ideas? I guess the x86 math.h implementation of abs() uses conditional mov intruction like this one (x in eax): mov edx, eax ; x neg eax ; -x cmp eax, edx ; x - (-x) cmovl eax, edx ; x < (-x) ? -x : x to compare your code in asm with x in eax: mov edx, eax ; x sar edx, 31 ; y = x >> 31 xor eax, edx ; x^y sub eax, edx ;(x^y)-y hmm... i wouldn't expect that the your one is so much slower - interesting. May be like Vincent already mentioned the "slow" arithmetic shift instruction on P4 and more dependencies. The cmov approach also needs only two ALU-instructions (neg, cmp), whether your aproach needs three. Gerd
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.