Hi Alan,
There a couple of issues with your code, let me get on them:
-Until recently (last night), getters were not accelerated, which causes a
significant
slowdown. I fixed this in r118899. The generated code is not as good as it
could be,
but this will be fixed eventually.
-Setters are still
Hey,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alan,
-Getters and setter are a hint of ill vectorized code.
In this particular scenario, I'm not sure how i can get rid of the use
of getters/setters unless I use even more unsafe code. I don't know
whether it's
Here's my benchmarking file anyway, it may prove useful.
Alan.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Alan McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alan,
-Getters and setter are a hint of ill vectorized code.
In this
I found a bit of code in the SHA1 implementation which i thought was
ideal for SIMD optimisations. However, unless i resort to unsafe code,
it's actually substantially slower! I've attached three
implementations of the method here. The original, the safe SIMD and
the unsafe SIMD. The runtimes are
I forgot to mention that I'm on a 1.86GHZ core2duo and i was running
with --optimize=simd.
Alan.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Alan McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found a bit of code in the SHA1 implementation which i thought was
ideal for SIMD optimisations. However, unless i resort
