>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 1:14 PM, gwes <g...@oat.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/1/20 8:05 AM, Luke Small wrote: >> I spoke to my favorite university computer science professor who said >> ++n is faster than n++ because the function needs to store the initial >> value, increment, then return the stored value in the former case, >> while the later merely increments, and returns the value. Apparently, >> he is still correct on modern hardware. > For decades the ++ and *p could be out of order, in different > execution units, writes speculatively queued, assigned to aliased registers, > etc, etc, etc. > > Geoff Steckel
Hey Luke, I love the passion but try to focus your attention on the fact that their are multiple architectures supported and compiler optimizations are key here. Go with Marc’s approach using arch/ asm. Implementations can be made over time for the various arch’s, if such an approach is desirable by the project. You can pull a well-optimized version based on your code, for your arch, and then slim it down a bunch. Cheers, Brian [Not a project developer. Just an observer.]
