Browse thread
questions about costs of nativeint vs int
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2001-01-12 (09:03) |
From: | Markus Mottl <mottl@m...> |
Subject: | Re: Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones. |
> However I was surprised to see that with the native code compiler > polymorphic variants appeared to be faster than normal ones. That > seems to mean than on modern CPUs, an indirect jump is about 3 times > more expansive than a conditional, and that polymorphic variants are > only going to be slow on huge matches. But this was a single, very > simple benchmark, so I'm not sure this behaviour is stable. This is also in accordance with a test that I did a few years ago (in C++): I wondered whether it is more efficient to use function pointers (jump tables) or case switches to choose the next code part to be executed. I was surprised to find out that such tables only started paying off at numbers of around 100 alternatives (I certainly did this test on Intel chips, but if I remember correctly, it is also true for Alphas). I guess this may have to do with pipelining and/or cache effects. Processor experts can probably tell us more... - Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl