On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
Either cachegrind is wrong, or gcc gets much better from that time?
Or do
I interpret cachegrind provided data in the wrong way? What do you
think
about it?
Or you're comparing x86 to power, and noticing that the x86 has to
execute way more da
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Karel Gardas wrote:
cachegrind can also be used to estimate the number (though, not sure
how accurate it is, possibly not very). I use Shark to actually get
the real number.
Perhaps it's possible that cachegrind is wrong or cache misses differ from
platform to platform, but I
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 06:38 AM, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > Especially: ``Currently gcc takes a cache miss every 20 instructions,
> > or
> > some ungodly number, and that really saps performance.''
> >
> > but I don't know if this is just an 1st April
On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 06:38 AM, Karel Gardas wrote:
Especially: ``Currently gcc takes a cache miss every 20 instructions,
or
some ungodly number, and that really saps performance.''
but I don't know if this is just an 1st April fool joke
Nope, no joke. The exact number will vary from m
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Karel Gardas wrote:
> using cache and how much cache it needs (I'm cosidering 512KB cache CPU
> here either Winchester or Venice core) and that's the reason why I ask
> here, since I've not been able so far to search by google for sufficient
> answer for this question.
Also t
Hello,
first of all, I'm sorry for off-topic, the question from subject might
look silly to you, since natural answer might be "it is very important",
but in the light of deciding what and how much memory will I need in AMD64
box, I've got into deciding troubles caused by the fact that I can not
