| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
spare_count they moved its large arrays and knapsack ran 7% slower at the same instructions (8.79 against 8.29 ms), at its end about 2% (8.45); research 139's afterword: 026 not taken heavily (the user's word), the one light cut made (a nested count loop's rounds sweeping only when few lanes are left: matmul 25.85 to 24.3 ms), the walk loops kept sweeping each round (held, BFS's batches ran out), and the stop; 041 runs of b21
|
| |
|
|
| |
deciding prototype 043): the executor's extra over 041 is interpretation, not semantics (matmul 11.1 ms of it, checks 0.2); the program interpreted a step at a time, with the executor's checks, ran matmul's loop in 10.36 ms and knapsack's in 4.16 (straight kernels 7.17 and 3.76; the executor about 22.2 and 7.3), about 14 and 5.4 ms with the making (bars 15 and 6.5; the compiled code 14.2 and 7.9); the buffer rule it found (registers at load, two buffers each so a result never lands on its operand, 24 lanes apart); the suite's five bodies sorted (matmul, knapsack, join's order loop straight-line; roots and BFS not); 026's scope as straight-line programs with the pass for the rest, and its risk
|
|
|
a load would make, interpreted a step at a time (scalar steps by the executor's rules, kernel steps over four-byte lane registers fixed at load with two buffers each, a list's cells once a batch, a deferred set after its distance check), against the same kernels called straight and natural.h's C: matmul 10.36 ms (straight 7.17; the executor's 25.8 with 3.6 of making), knapsack 4.16 (straight 3.76; the executor's 8.19); 139's question, bars and b20's split (matmul's 11.1 ms of interpretation, knapsack's 1.9)
|
