C implementation of mod_1_1
tg at gmplib.org
Wed Mar 2 15:18:48 CET 2011
nisse at lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
That should lower overhead on those targets. But it doesn't explain
lowered thresholds in, e.g., mpn/powerpc64/mode64/p5/gmp-mparam.h...
I completely agree. :-)
> Perhaps we should suppress the measuring, or at least avoid putting
> ignored parameters in the gmp-mparam.h files?
I think there's some value in measuring all available variants and warn
for anomalies such as an assembly implementation not being fastest. But I
have no strong feelings either way.
I think various sanity measuring makes a lot of sense:
(1) check that the chosen code is not slower than any alternative
implementation of the same function
(2) check that the chosen code is not slower than any implementation of
a more powerful function (such as addmul_1 being faster than
(3) check that we don't cause short-time or long-term slowdown of any
function for any operand size
I don't think any of these results should be put into tuneup.c and
reported as for inclusion gmp-mparam.h, though.
More information about the gmp-devel