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.