This is too slow

[Antariy]

no Alex - same problem

First row is not copied properly? I have changed only one testing description.

[dedndave]

the first row ?
the first algo data row is where it quits
see the previous posts with the short results - it looks the same

[Antariy]

Dave, how about this? First row should shows.
This is not CPU issues, this is entanglement of string lengths.

[dedndave]

i know - but i was trying to give Frank something to think about, in terms of CPU/SSE   :bdg

yes - that one works, Alex

Code Select Expand


┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────[22-Nov-2010 at 01:46 GMT]─┐
│OS  : Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)                     │
│CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz with 2 logical core(s) with SSE3                │
├──────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┤
│        Algorithm notes           │Proc Size│ Test # 1 │ Test # 2 │ Test # 3 │ Test # 4 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│01 ustrv$ + GetNumberFormat       │    95   │   74,853 │   76,643 │   73,079 │   77,197 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│02 udw2str + GetNumberFormat      │    65   │   71,043 │   75,563 │   70,802 │   86,603 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│03 wsprintf + GetNumberFormat     │    73   │   92,975 │   96,372 │  100,538 │   90,121 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│04 Clive - IDIV and Stack         │   120   │    8,812 │    9,840 │    9,729 │   11,084 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│05 Clive - reciprocal IMUL        │   157   │    3,566 │    3,369 │    3,184 │    3,952 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│06 Hutch ustr$ + format algo      │   159   │   12,113 │   12,253 │   11,941 │   11,992 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤


[frktons]

Instead of the:

Code Select Expand


   SSE2    EQU  ON


I should do something like:

Code Select Expand


CALL ChkSSE2
.if eax
  SSE2  EQU  ON
.else
  SSE2  EQU  OFF
.endif

I don't actually know if this syntax is correct. Is it?  

[dedndave]

well - you are going to want to test for MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3   :bg
use the routine i posted earlier
store the result in a dword and use BT on that dword to see if a feature is present

or the "&"

if FeatureFlags & 20h

[Antariy]

i know - but i was trying to give Frank something to think about, in terms of CPU/SSE   :bdg

yes - that one works, Alex

Thanks!  :U

I'm changed, in ProgData.inc:

Code Select Expand


AlgoDescSize     DWORD SIZEOF AlgoDesc-1


:lol

Try to make this changement in original source, and tell results  :U

[hutch--]

Looks good here Frank.

Code Select Expand


┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────[22-Nov-2010 at 01:52 GMT]─┐
│OS  : Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (build 2600)                     │
│CPU : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz with 4 logical core(s) with SSE4.1    │
├──────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┤
│        Algorithm notes           │Proc Size│ Test # 1 │ Test # 2 │ Test # 3 │ Test # 4 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│01 ustrv$ + GetNumberFormat       │    95   │   32,115 │   32,048 │   31,269 │   31,559 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│02 udw2str + GetNumberFormat      │    65   │   32,146 │   31,748 │   32,162 │   31,828 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│03 wsprintf + GetNumberFormat     │    73   │   37,187 │   37,389 │   37,251 │   37,388 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│04 Clive - IDIV and Stack         │   120   │    2,583 │    2,583 │    2,583 │    2,577 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│05 Clive - reciprocal IMUL        │   157   │    2,052 │    2,017 │    2,009 │    2,019 │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│06                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│07                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│08                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│09                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│10                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│11                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│12                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│13                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│14                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│15                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│16                                │         │          │          │          │          │
├──────────────────────────────────┴─────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┤
│ Esc         Exit       Copy       Run       View       Save       Info       F1 Help   │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘


[Antariy]

Instead of the:

Code Select Expand


   SSE2    EQU  ON


I should do something like:

Code Select Expand


CALL ChkSSE2
.if eax
  SSE2  EQU  ON
.else
  SSE2  EQU  OFF
.endif

I don't actually know if this syntax is correct. Is it?  

No, you cannot mix macro equations and code - equations is compile time stuff.

well - you are going to want to test for MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3? ?:bg

Dave, at original thread of "New TestBed", I'm already posted fully functional and working manager of the algos, which is exclude unsupported algos from testing at runtime. Its decision based on result returned by CPUID code at the start of the program.

[dedndave]

that's it Alex - you found it   :U

as for mixing code and equates - you can handle that as an assembly-time conditional
but, that isn't how i would do it - lol

[frktons]

well - you are going to want to test for MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3   :bg
use the routine i posted earlier
store the result in a dword and use BT on that dword to see if a feature is present

I think the routine for CPU detection has already everything I need. At least, I think
Alex, the routine is yours, what do you think?

i know - but i was trying to give Frank something to think about, in terms of CPU/SSE   :bdg

yes - that one works, Alex

Thanks!  :U

I'm changed, in ProgData.inc:

Code Select Expand


AlgoDescSize     DWORD SIZEOF AlgoDesc-1


:lol

Try to make this changement in original source, and tell results  :U

This is logical as well.  :U I'll change it, but the routine already works with Dave's workaround.
Maybe this will make it not necessary to use the workaround. Better if Dave tests it.

Looks good here Frank.

Yes Steve. Thanks. It has some problem with oldies.

[Antariy]

that's it Alex - you found it   :U

With your help  :U

[dedndave]

Frank
my work-around was merely a debuging tool used to help isolate the problem

Alex's fix is the right way to do it - and it works
remove my temporary code

[frktons]

Frank
my work-around was merely a debuging tool used to help isolate the problem

Alex's fix is the right way to do it - and it works
remove my temporary code

Already done.  :P

[Antariy]

I think the routine for CPU detection has already everything I need. At least, I think
Alex, the routine is yours, what do you think?

I'm already sayed many times that my CPUid code returns the maximal supported instruction set. And can be used for determination of execution of the algos. Moreover, that "ultra hidded" feature is used in the my "Algos Manager" :P :lol

Just read comments for AxCPUid code.

This is logical as well.  :U I'll change it, but the routine already works with Dave's workaround.

Daves workaround is straightforward as it is possible, and show that culprit is the zero byte, as mentinioned. But it is slow enough - search of string, and replace the nulls. Some time ago you didn't wants to search "Here can be your advertisement" for my manger  :lol

Maybe this will make it not necessary to use the workaround. Better if Dave tests it.

He already test it, it work.