Article: MAQSIP-RT: An HPC Benchmark
By: Konrad Schwarz (no.spam.delete@this.no.spam), July 7, 2010 7:34 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ian Ollmann (iano@apple.com) on 7/6/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>1) Weak support for threading. The timing of operations is at times over-described or under-described.
This gives ISA designers the freedom to try out various relaxed memory models.
>2) No SIMD vector support / failure to standardize types early on -- how big is
>an int anyway? A double? What is the bit pattern for these things? (I group these
>together because many algorithms for vectors require fixed data representations.)
# include
# if INT_MAX >= 1 << (CHAR_BIT << 1)
# error An int is more than 2 bytes
/* and so on */
# endif
The point of C is portability, e.g. to both 2s complement and sign-magnitude machines -- never mind they no longer exist. That's why these things were not specified.
>3) Most of all -- The language is conversion-happy. Following basic hardware models
>of 50 years ago, it tries to convert everything to a core hardware type, do the
>work, and convert back.
Well, all my RISC machines work exactly this way, and I'm sure the x86 people would rather not have to deal with AH, AL, AX, EAX and RAX etc.
All the conversions are a problem, because they make it
>difficult to precisely describe an algorithm -- what you see is not what you get.
>E.g. short << 16, forces a conversion to int (of what size?) before the shift
>occurs, so if you right shift again later, those bits might be there or might not.
Can be solved with. Although P.J. Plaugher is to blame for C89's stupid move away from K+R C's rule of preserving unsignedness.
---------------------------
>1) Weak support for threading. The timing of operations is at times over-described or under-described.
This gives ISA designers the freedom to try out various relaxed memory models.
>2) No SIMD vector support / failure to standardize types early on -- how big is
>an int anyway? A double? What is the bit pattern for these things? (I group these
>together because many algorithms for vectors require fixed data representations.)
# include
# if INT_MAX >= 1 << (CHAR_BIT << 1)
# error An int is more than 2 bytes
/* and so on */
# endif
The point of C is portability, e.g. to both 2s complement and sign-magnitude machines -- never mind they no longer exist. That's why these things were not specified.
>3) Most of all -- The language is conversion-happy. Following basic hardware models
>of 50 years ago, it tries to convert everything to a core hardware type, do the
>work, and convert back.
Well, all my RISC machines work exactly this way, and I'm sure the x86 people would rather not have to deal with AH, AL, AX, EAX and RAX etc.
All the conversions are a problem, because they make it
>difficult to precisely describe an algorithm -- what you see is not what you get.
>E.g. short << 16, forces a conversion to int (of what size?) before the shift
>occurs, so if you right shift again later, those bits might be there or might not.
Can be solved with
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New article online: MAQSIP RT | David Kanter | 2010/06/21 10:57 AM |
Why no GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/22 08:25 PM |
Why no GCC? | David Kanter | 2010/06/22 11:45 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/23 04:04 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | anon | 2010/06/23 06:49 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/23 09:42 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 01:49 PM |
even for 64-bit arch? | anon | 2010/06/23 01:59 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/23 10:03 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:33 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 04:32 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:18 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:50 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/24 11:17 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/28 03:00 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Bernd Schmidt | 2010/06/24 04:46 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:43 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:12 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Rob Thorpe | 2010/06/24 06:47 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Anon | 2010/06/24 04:23 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/23 09:45 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 12:48 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:29 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 02:13 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 02:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:08 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:54 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:22 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Rohit | 2010/06/24 02:04 AM |
Placebo effect | ? | 2010/06/24 05:37 AM |
Placebo effect | Rohit | 2010/06/24 07:45 AM |
Placebo effect | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:50 PM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/26 04:28 PM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:44 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:12 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:21 AM |
Compile time | EduardoS | 2010/06/27 10:37 AM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:07 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | ? | 2010/06/27 11:03 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Christiansen | 2010/06/28 05:08 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 06:48 AM |
kernel programming language | John Simon | 2010/06/29 05:46 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 08:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 10:17 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 01:16 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 05:23 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/29 07:31 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/29 10:48 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:28 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/29 06:12 PM |
C is a crappy, but only when you push it out of it's niche | Rohit | 2010/06/30 01:11 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/06/30 01:17 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/30 06:59 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/01 03:30 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 06:00 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 07:02 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 07:50 AM |
C isn't so crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:11 AM |
C isn't so crappy | Mikael Tillenius | 2010/07/01 10:39 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 10:22 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 07:44 AM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 11:33 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/02 12:17 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 01:56 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 02:13 PM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 02:32 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 03:19 PM |
C is a crappy | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/07/05 04:25 AM |
C is a crappy | gallier2 | 2010/07/01 11:14 PM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/06 02:07 PM |
Portability | Max | 2010/07/06 02:37 PM |
C is a crappy | hobold | 2010/07/07 01:31 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:18 PM |
failure to standardize types | Carlie Coats | 2010/07/07 03:11 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 07:34 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:29 PM |
C is a crappy NOT | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 11:29 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:40 PM |
C type safety | ? | 2010/07/02 12:10 AM |
C type safety | anon | 2010/07/02 10:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/03 03:51 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/03 06:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/05 06:27 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/05 08:05 AM |
C is a crappy | anonymous | 2010/07/07 07:32 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/07 09:48 PM |
C is a crappy | Anon | 2010/07/07 11:53 PM |
C is a crappy and a crappie is a fish | anonymous | 2010/07/03 06:24 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:18 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:20 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | someone | 2010/06/30 10:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Jouni Osmala | 2010/07/02 04:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Max | 2010/06/28 04:05 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | EduardoS | 2010/06/28 04:11 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:33 AM |
Compile time | Foo_ | 2010/06/28 08:03 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Silent | 2010/06/23 05:19 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Foo_ | 2010/06/23 06:06 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 01:49 AM |
sun 's versus gcc | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 02:07 PM |
Why no GCC? | Carlie Coats | 2010/06/23 04:11 AM |