Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
Permalink for comment 552822
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
moondevil,
"Actually when I think about optimizing compilers, I am thinking about Portland Group, Intel and Codeplay compilers."
Intel's is the only one I've used, but that might have been five years ago. The other two don't offer versions for the public. Codeplay's website seems to indicate they specialize with game accelloration on cuda and PS3.
"I don't do any low level programming myself since around 2000, so in a way I am also curious how the reality is."
I wish i could say I did it professionally, but I don't. I just do it for my own pet projects. Not long I managed to beat the GMP arbitrary size arithmatic library on divisions for lengths of around 4 words. I was a bit surprised since my algorithm is straitforward (though it did require inline assembly optimization). I want to confirm that my results are valid in the general case on multiple machines. Also I need to confirm that GMP was in fact using it's fastest algorithm; GMP does automatically choose between many of them so maybe the selector was poorly tuned.
It would be very interesting to see whether the assembly optimizations could be eliminated under ICC, maybe I'll give it a shot. This is all on the back burner now since I only get paid to do web stuff.