|Interpreters for VLIW email@example.com (2001-01-11)|
|Re: Interpreters for VLIW firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-01-18)|
|Re: Interpreters for VLIW email@example.com (Jim Granville) (2001-01-18)|
|Re: Interpreters for VLIW Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr (Xavier Leroy) (2001-01-18)|
|Re: Interpreters for VLIW firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-01-20)|
|From:||Jim Granville <email@example.com>|
|Date:||18 Jan 2001 00:53:31 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||18 Jan 2001 00:53:29 EST|
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I have compiled GNU Smalltalk on the Itanium and found it to be
> horribly slow --- Less than half the speed of an Intel chip with the
> same clock! The reason is, the basic blocks in the interpreter are
> too small for GCC to do nice instruction scheduling. Does anyone know
> of pointers to papers on optimizing interpreters for VLIW
I thought Intel was offering a fancy 'instruction shuffling' compiler
for this chip - have you tried that ?
Was the same level of optimise done on both referance platforms ?
Cache Sizes ?
On these high end MPU, there are interesting effects with interpreters
and Cache size.
If they have to start from < 50% on equivalent code, it does not look
good for Itanium.
Can you try a similar benchmark on the Crusoe - that would be
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.