16 Apr
2008
16 Apr
'08
4:21 a.m.
Am Mittwoch, 16. April 2008 09:19:19 schrieb Christian Schoenebeck:
But if you're totally sceptical, you could simply
move out the mixing
functions into an own C++ file, compile that object file with maximum
optimization, and compile the actual benchmark application with just "-O1"
or something.
Which I just did, and this time the assembly result is equal to the gcc vector
result:
Benchmarking mixdown (no coeff):
pure C++ : 680 ms
ASM SSE : 200 ms
GCC vector extensions : 200 ms
Benchmarking mixdown (WITH coeff):
pure C++ : 1100 ms
ASM SSE : 310 ms
GCC vector extensions : 300 ms
because that way the compiler is forced to compile the gcc vector solution
with real function calls, whereas in yesterday's benchmark the C++ and gcc
vector functions were simply inlined (I checked the compiler's assembly
output). But in practice you would make those short functions inliners
anyway. And even if it's "just" as good as hand crafted assembly code,
it's a
lot easiear to maintain compared to assembly and compiles (and optimizes) for
other architectures as well. So I'm definitely on the vector train now ...
CU
Christian