[LAD] vectorization

[Jens M Andreasen]

On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 14:01 +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. April 2008 12:17:23 schrieb Jens M Andreasen:
> > Then you will probably like this run of ./mixdown:
> >
> > Benchmarking mixdown (WITH coeff):
> > pure C++                : 150 ms <-- pretty good, eh? ;-)
> > ASM SSE                 : 140 ms
> > GCC vector extensions   : 150 ms
> >
> > This is with -ftree-vectorize added to your compile options.
> 
> Hey, nice! :-)
> 
> But that works only well for the inlined version. If the mixer C(++) function 
> is located in another object file and the compiler is forced to use real 
> function calls, then the C(++) result is still worse than the gcc vector 
> version, even with "-ftree-vectorize":

It is not the function call. Seems more like the vectorizer gets lost?
You can get all kinds of information with -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=5
--8<-------------------------------------------------------
cppmix.cpp:27: note: dependence distance  = 0.
cppmix.cpp:27: note: accesses have the same alignment.
cppmix.cpp:27: note: dependence distance modulo vf == 0 between
*D.2232_8 and *D.2232_8
cppmix.cpp:27: note: not vectorized: can't determine dependence between
*D.2235_18 and *D.2232_8
cppmix.cpp:26: note: vectorized 0 loops in function.

.. unfortunately, I have no idea excactly what to do with the
information?

Moving the cpp code back to the main file and adding
-funsafe-math-optimizations proves a lot more interresting:

Benchmarking mixdown (no coeff):
pure C++                : 100 ms
ASM SSE                 : 140 ms
GCC vector extensions   : 120 ms

Benchmarking mixdown (WITH coeff):
pure C++                : 120 ms
ASM SSE                 : 150 ms
GCC vector extensions   : 170 ms

One more time for those who missed it the first time, this time
commenting out everything but 'pure cpp w coff':

Benchmarking mixdown (WITH coeff):
pure C++                : 120 ms <-- bloody murder!