public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/98076] Increase speed of integer I/O
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:31:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98076-4-1U8PbSIg4o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-98076-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98076

Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Benchmarking of the formatting of 100 million times a value of the order of
medium-sized number (INT_MAX/2) by gfc_itoa. On the 64-bit target I have at
hand (aarch64-apple-darwin), depending on whether the function is implemented
as:

__int128 : 3.91 seconds
int64_t  : 0.86 seconds
int32_t  : 0.84 seconds

__int128 relies on a function call of the division (___divti3), others don't.
This would allow for a very simple optimisation, that does not require to
change the current I/O workflow, i.e., passing all integer values as the
largest type (usually int128_t):

- have a fast itoa64() function that takes an uint64_t arg
- have gfc_itoa() call itoa64() if the argument fits
- otherwise, divide by a large power of ten, and recursively apply itoa64()

For small values, itoa64() will be called once per gfc_itoa() call. Worst case
behaviour (very large 128-bit values) is 2 division calls to itoa64(), which is
still faster than doing the 38 128-bit divisions in the current version.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-12-16 21:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-01  6:49 [Bug libfortran/98076] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-01  6:50 ` [Bug libfortran/98076] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-16 16:22 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-27 11:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-28  7:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-29 19:18 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-16 21:31 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-12-16 21:40 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-16 23:20 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-17  9:05 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-25 13:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-26 11:14 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-27 20:13 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-27 20:25 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-27 21:59 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-98076-4-1U8PbSIg4o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).