Re: while ();
- From: robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 22:05:04 -0800
\\\o///annabee wrote:
> På 30 Jan 2006 13:57:31 -0800, skrev <robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >> and it certainly wount matter
> >> at all then, because 3 iterations will be closer to nothing.
> >
> >
> > Obviously the notion that a loop with few iterations might be inside a
> > big loop has escaped you.
>
> ?? :)
>
> > If you have a million iterations around a
> > small loop of two or three iterations the performance of the small loop
> > will most certainly matter, and with that few iterations branch
> > (mis)prediction will be a significant issue.
>
> :) Wrong! Following is code to show you wrong.
>
>(...)pointless code snipped
>
> What you claim is irrelevant from a optimization perspective.
*Sigh*
Try coding the short loop two ways - one where it generates one branch
misprediction, the other two.
.
- References:
- Re: while ();
- From: \\\\\\o///annabee
- Re: while ();
- From: robertwessel2
- Re: while ();
- From: \\\\\\o///annabee
- Re: while ();
- Prev by Date: Re: while ();
- Next by Date: Re: LOL and behold
- Previous by thread: Re: while ();
- Next by thread: LOL and behold
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|