Experience porting Squeak to 64-bit machines?
Richard A. O'Keefe
ok at atlas.otago.ac.nz
Thu Feb 7 01:01:41 UTC 2002
Yoel Jacobsen <yoel at emet.co.il> wrote:
By the way, I made these tests because I was troubled by how slow squeak
is on Solaris (~25M bytecode/sec on Ultra 10 440MHz, ~45M on this Blade
1000)... I'm quite sure it will get no better unless squeak will be
ported to 64bit.
I don't know if it applies to the latest UltraSPARCs, but in the earlier
models, 32-bit *signed* ints are slower than 32-bit *unsigned* ints.
When you load a 32-bit signed int, it's sign extended, which takes an
extra cycle _unless_ the CPU was already expecting that. Unsigned ints
are zero extended, which doesn't take that extra cycle. So a mix of
signed and unsigned loads is slower than a straight set of signed loads
or a straight set of unsigned loads. It was quite easy to measure the
difference.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|