Hi Adrian,
"Adrian Veith" wrote:
[...]
>
>we optimized the code further and eliminated the all Next, Prev: Integer
>etc to and changed them to pointers again. Here are the results:
[...]
>first optimization - saving redundant array access to pointers:
[...]
>next optimization - changed code to u
> Eduardo wrote:
>
>Can you try optimize for size? In some cases, it reduces L2 / L3 cache
>miss and runs faster than O3. It happens in other compilers and
>languages too.
>
I just tried it: The code gets even slightly larger and much slower (almost a
factor of 2).
__
wrote:
>My 2 cents:
>looking at the code, i would assume that you can gain by using linked lists
>with pointers instead of arrays and working with the index. This would reduce
>the number of offset calculations. However, it means quite a rewrite. So, do
>you really need more speed?
My experi
Hi Adrian,
it is a scientific application that I have, which has about 2000 lines of code.
By extracting the most time consuming routine I now have 360 lines of code.
With this code I get the following runtime results:
optimized FPC pascal *** is 58% SLOWER *** than optimized DELPHI 7
unop
Hi all,
I am currently trying to get the fastest possible code from fpc on a modern
CPU (Intel Xeon) under Windows XP. I use the compiler options:
fpc -Mdelphi -O3 -OpPENTIUMM -Cfsse2 -Cr- -Co- -CO- -Ci- myprogram.dpr
Are there any better settings I should use? Compiling exactly the same p
