| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<a2b9c4c04c26bff6682d7b11c939e347@www.novabbs.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:03:36 +0000 Organization: Rocksolid Light Message-ID: <a2b9c4c04c26bff6682d7b11c939e347@www.novabbs.org> References: <vlgngv$1ks4a$1@dont-email.me> <4903307dfcce354508c9fc016a4c1ea1@www.novabbs.org> <vli2gu$1aftg$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vm17ka$1d58r$1@dont-email.me> <vm40rc$21r0r$1@dont-email.me> <vm51cd$2ac32$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3600378"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$g8UdLS9dTMCWHsXVFRjHtuG95Ya.aFbKeaexs6rJWGiMurDNRyvWa X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2173 Lines: 27 On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 6:48:45 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > I wrote: >> Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> schrieb: >>> Has Lapack (and the other old style Fortran numeric >>> code that Waldek mentioned) lost its/their importance as a major user of >>> CPU cycles? >> >> It's less than it used to be in the days when supercomputers >> roamed the computer centers, but for these applications where >> it matters, it can be significant. >> >>> Or do these subroutines consume so many CPU cycles that the >>> overhead of the large number of parameters is lost in the noise? >> >> If you have many small matrices to multiply, startup overhead >> can be quite significant. Not on a 2000*2000 matrix, though. >> >>> Or is >>> there some other explanation for Mitch not considering their importance? >> >> I think eight arguments, passed by reference in registers, is not >> too bad. > > .... when the rest can be passed on the stack. And those passed in registers can be stored into memory adjacent to the memory arguments easily.