Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:38:33 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 13:30:43, Bo Persson wrote: >On March 15, 2001 at 09:57:54, James Swafford wrote: > >>On March 15, 2001 at 02:58:48, José Carlos wrote: >> >>> >>> I haven't written assembler pieces in my program, so I cannot say about how >>>much can assembler speed up the program, but I think you should feel happy if >>>the compiler does so good job that you don't need to write assembler code, >>>because this way, you have a more portable and understandable (easy to modify) >>>code. Don't you think? >> >>While that's true, on some level I'm a little disappointed. Assembly >>programming is almost an art unto itself; now it seems the advantage >>of using assembly may be dwindling. > >Yes, but in part this is because the processor architectures (from Intel, at >least) are aimed at what an optimizing compiler can do. For the Itanium, it is >really part of the design that a compiler can schedule the instruction triples >(3 instructions per clock) 6 instructions per clock. Eugene > to take advantage of the parallellism. Even if you >are a very good assembly programmer, you will eventually give up when one >changed instruction forces you to reschedule the rest of the function. A >compiler does this everytime, without getting tired :-) > >>> >>> José C. > > >Bo Persson >bop@malmo.mail.telia.com
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.