Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)
De : mitchalsup (at) *nospam* aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 12. Jan 2025, 21:41:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Rocksolid Light
Message-ID : <2585a0874100556af0ec81e9ce32e0c4@www.novabbs.org>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 20:10:50 +0000, Stephen Fuld wrote:

On 1/6/2025 6:11 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> wrote:
I also think code would be a bit more efficient if there more registers
available for parameter passing and as scratch registers - perhaps 6
would make more sense.
>
Basically, here, there is competing pressure between the compiler
needing a handful of preserved registers, and the compiler being
more efficient if there were more argument/result passing registers.
>
My 66000 ABI has 8 argument registers, 7 temporary registers, 14
preserved registers, a FP, and a SP. IP is not part of the register
file. My ABI has a note indicating that the aggregations can be
altered, just that I need a good reason to change.
>
I looked high and low for codes using more than 8 arguments and
returning aggregates larger than 8 double words, and about the
only things I found were a handful of []print[]() calls.
>
I meet such code with reasonable frequency.  I peeked semi
randomly into Lapack.  First routine that I looked at had
8 arguments, so within your limit.  Second is:
>
       SUBROUTINE ZUNMR3( SIDE, TRANS, M, N, K, L, A, LDA, TAU, C, LDC,
      $                   WORK, INFO )
>
which has 13 arguments.
>
Large number of arguments is typical in old style Fortran numeric
code.
>
While there has been much discussion down thread relating to Waldek's
other points, there hasn't been much about these.
>
So, some questions.  Has Lapack (and the other old style Fortran numeric
code that Waldek mentioned) lost its/their importance as a major user of
CPU cycles?  Or do these subroutines consume so many CPU cycles that the
overhead of the large number of parameters is lost in the noise? Or is
there some other explanation for Mitch not considering their importance?
Almost entirely the later.
The 13 cycles of overhead are invisible in a subroutine
that takes 1B cycles to execute.
But also note: The way Fortran passes array arguments is just perfect
for avoiding almost all bounds checks. Arrays are used in loops where
the initialization and termination are stored in the dope vector--
which is trusted.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Jan 25 * Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)81David Brown
6 Jan 25 +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Theo
7 Jan 25 i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1David Brown
6 Jan 25 +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)8Anton Ertl
6 Jan 25 i+* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)6MitchAlsup1
7 Jan 25 ii`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)5David Brown
8 Jan 25 ii `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)4MitchAlsup1
8 Jan 25 ii  +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Chris M. Thomasson
8 Jan 25 ii  i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Chris M. Thomasson
8 Jan 25 ii  `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
7 Jan 25 i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1David Brown
6 Jan 25 `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)70MitchAlsup1
7 Jan 25  +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)18Waldek Hebisch
7 Jan 25  i+- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
12 Jan 25  i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)16Stephen Fuld
12 Jan 25  i +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
13 Jan 25  i +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)11Waldek Hebisch
14 Jan 25  i i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)10Stephen Fuld
14 Jan 25  i i `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)9Terje Mathisen
14 Jan 25  i i  `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)8Michael S
15 Jan 25  i i   `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)7MitchAlsup1
15 Jan 25  i i    +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3John Levine
15 Jan 25  i i    i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2MitchAlsup1
15 Jan 25  i i    i `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1John Levine
16 Jan 25  i i    `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Waldek Hebisch
16 Jan 25  i i     `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2MitchAlsup1
16 Jan 25  i i      `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Waldek Hebisch
13 Jan 25  i `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Thomas Koenig
14 Jan 25  i  `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Thomas Koenig
14 Jan 25  i   `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
7 Jan 25  +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)6George Neuner
8 Jan 25  i+* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Stefan Monnier
9 Jan 25  ii`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Anton Ertl
13 Jan 25  ii `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Stefan Monnier
28 Jan 25  i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Tim Rentsch
29 Jan 25  i `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1George Neuner
8 Jan 25  `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)45Stefan Monnier
8 Jan 25   +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
8 Jan 25   `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)43Anton Ertl
9 Jan 25    `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)42Stefan Monnier
9 Jan 25     +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
9 Jan 25     `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)40Anton Ertl
9 Jan 25      +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Thomas Koenig
10 Jan 25      i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Anton Ertl
9 Jan 25      +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)4MitchAlsup1
9 Jan 25      i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Thomas Koenig
10 Jan 25      i `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2MitchAlsup1
10 Jan 25      i  `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Thomas Koenig
10 Jan 25      +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)29Waldek Hebisch
10 Jan 25      i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)28Anton Ertl
10 Jan 25      i +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1John Levine
13 Jan 25      i `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)26MitchAlsup1
13 Jan 25      i  `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)25Thomas Koenig
13 Jan 25      i   `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)24MitchAlsup1
13 Jan 25      i    +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)22MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    i+* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)17MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    ii+- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1David Brown
14 Jan 25      i    ii+* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Michael S
14 Jan 25      i    iii`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Anton Ertl
14 Jan 25      i    ii+- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    ii`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)12Thomas Koenig
14 Jan 25      i    ii +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)7Terje Mathisen
14 Jan 25      i    ii i+- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    ii i+* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)4Thomas Koenig
15 Jan 25      i    ii ii`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Keith Thompson
15 Jan 25      i    ii ii +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Keith Thompson
15 Jan 25      i    ii ii `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Keith Thompson
14 Jan 25      i    ii i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Michael S
14 Jan 25      i    ii +- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    ii `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3Thomas Koenig
14 Jan 25      i    ii  `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Michael S
15 Jan 25      i    ii   `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1MitchAlsup1
14 Jan 25      i    i+- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Thomas Koenig
14 Jan 25      i    i`* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)3David Brown
14 Jan 25      i    i `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2David Brown
15 Jan 25      i    i  `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Keith Thompson
14 Jan 25      i    `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1Keith Thompson
10 Jan 25      `* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)4David Brown
10 Jan 25       +* Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)2Thomas Koenig
12 Jan 25       i`- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1David Brown
12 Jan 25       `- Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)1David Brown

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal