Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 19:56:59 02/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2003 at 22:47:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The claim to fame for the sparc approach is simply "fast procedure calls". >No register saving or restoring. It was a necessary trade-off since the >first sparcs didn't have hardware integer multiply/divide which made procedure >calls very frequent. Compilers that inline code and do "fastcalls" negate any benefit that register windowing gives you. >>Doesn't matter for computer chess. Every program I know about (with the >>exception of HIARCS) has a working set of < 256k. >I have one that doesn't fit your working set limit... >IE my attack lookup tables are 8 byte arrays of size [64][256] which turns You don't have to do some sort of thought experiment to try to figure out how big your working set is. Just run your program on a certain processor and vary its clock speed. If the program scales [more or less] linearly, your working set is smaller than the CPU's caches. -Tom
This page took 0 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.