Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Why is assembly more effecient than C?

Author: Danniel Corbit

Date: 09:40:07 09/28/98

Go up one level in this thread


On September 28, 1998 at 09:17:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On September 28,
[snip]
Dann:
>>For thousands or millions of lines of C,
>>an equivalent ASM is very hard to produce for Risc machines.
>
>I'll take that bet.  :)
>
>Remember:  RISC == Really Invented by Seymour Cray.  The cray has been
>RISC from day one.  (Classic definition is one load/one store instruction,
>everything operates on registers).  If someone writes an optimizer for a
>processor, I *guarantee* you that I can write code better, because *every*
>optimizer has concessions.  They are very good, no doubt, but *not* as good
>as someone that understands the architecture in fine detail...  That's why
>the scientific labs have folks that do nothing but take existing code and
>hand-code assembly replacements to make them run faster.  This was Harry's
>job at livermore lab from the time they got their first Cray-1...
Probably depends on the chip.  Consider a sparc.  256 registers.  Do you imagine
that a person can really track those better than a machine over millions of
invocations and context switches?



This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.