Torbjörn Granlund <[email protected]> writes: > I suppose it would be somewhat interesting to know how close the > measured best and measured 2nd best methods are, or how much better the > measured best methods is than the configured method.
Part 1 is done by the "runner up" logic I added to tuneup a while ago. In the tuneup output, it looks like #define DIV_QR_1N_PI1_METHOD 4 /* 13.42% faster than 2 */ (example from https://gmplib.org/devel/tm/gmp/tuneup/success/pi4.gmplib.org-stat:64.txt). But not surfaced in an obvious way on the threshold web pages. Part 2 would be relevant too, in particular when the configured method is neither best or the runner up, according to tuneup. > And, when there is asm, the scary performance ratio between C and asm > which would suggest that C-to-C comparisons of tight GMP loops might not > be terribly relevant. :-) That's a more subtle comparison. Would also be good to annotate which C method (if any) the assembly routine is based on. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
