Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Need for a built in round_to_int function
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Erik de Castro Lopo <ocaml-erikd@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Need for a built in round_to_int function
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:00:23 +0100
Xavier Leroy <> wrote:

> On the other hand, according to the P4 optimization manuals, the P4 is
> supposed to special-case this particular use of fnstcw / fldcw, so
> perhaps the situation is no worse than on the P3.  

OK, I've just tested this. On P4 the performance hit of fnstcw / fldcw 
is not as bad as it is with P3, but its still significant:

Using this test program (compiled with my hacked version of ocamlopt):

On a 450MHz P3:

    Time int_of_float : 5.970000
    Time round_to_int : 2.360000

On a 2.8GHz P4:

    Time int_of_float : 0.420000
    Time round_to_int : 0.260000

> Essentially zero :-(  Basically, this is a case where additional stuff is
> introduced in the machine-independent parts of ocamlopt and in every
> code generator just to work around the brain-dead x87 floating-point
> instruction set.

Obviously it is your decision, but I think round_to_int is a common 
enough operation to warrant its own function. The ISO C Standards
committee thought so.

>  Every other processor (as well as the SSE2 instr.set

Quite honestly I think the value of SSE and SSE2 are over sold.
There are certain algorthims which simply can't be made to run
as fast on SSE/SSE2 as they run on the x87 FPU.

For instance, my audio sample rate converter:

If I compile this on a P3 with gcc-3.4 using -mfpmath=sse -msse,
the highest quality (and hence slowest) converter runs 50% slower 
than the x87 FPU version. I have also tried re-writing the algorithm 
in hand optimised SSE code. The best I could get (I'm not an assembler 
expert) was still 10% slower than the x87 FPU.

I have just now repeated my experiment by compiling SRC on a P4 
with -msse2 (-mfpmath=sse2 doesn't work), the converter runs 75% 
slower than the x87 FPU version.

> I spent a lot of time in the past trying to extract decent float
> performance out of the x87 instruction set,


> Nowadays, I no longer care about
> performance for x87: users who want good float performance should
> simply use the x86-64 architecture (with SSE2 floats), 

I'd love to get my hands on one of these, but I really do doubt
that its performance will be much better than that of the P4. 
The main problem is that generating good SSE/SSE2 code from
a high level language is an order of magnitude more difficult
than generating code for the x87 FPU.

  Erik de Castro Lopo (Yes it's valid)
"Projects promoting programming in natural language are intrinsically
doomed to fail." -- Edsger Dijkstra