On 2013-05-20, at 11:28 AM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 6:49 AM, David Chase wrote: >> Suppose I split this bug (i.e., file a new bug) into the Intel-acceleration >> part and the fork-join part. > > Yes, please, do that. And, before I waste more time tearing my hair out, suppose that I punt on accelerating Windows until we are using a more modern Visual Studio? Because I went a looked at the problem, the assembly language has a completely different syntax, it would double the amount of ugly asm in that file, and the people with the performance problem were not running Windows. > You still don't want to do it in VM as intrinsic/stubs? ;) I think that would be a lovely idea. Can we get 16-byte alignment guaranteed from the GCC, and use of 128-bit wide xmm registers compiled in? > You would not have all these C++ issues and I can help you with that. It is clear that the compiler internals are the land of don't-ask-don't-tell. Perhaps we could slip a little fork-join parallelism in there, too? :-) David
