| Re: [eigen] Status of AVX support |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Status of AVX support
- From: Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:23:38 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=bBKBvD4CsxaokaBAEY/54wECA82xSXmzM+a+l3BEKFY=; b=dYo5ZjPy0GjBr8JlWvG29pO5/PvELsN/zAwOEutEyT7FNPTPlDhYZ43PabKR0rDDbe mV7q1/3YmCFDxeFybNlP4aQdANStS94wgRZXLiuadX2/Ns17CpmOrMqFcEcILp/isUFL 42mpukG0MLjnpsb3KQsqJavmvpjDV8D0elBFs=
> W.r.t porting to AVX: Be aware that there might be some pitfalls with
> AVX-performance:
> http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=142
Interesting tidbit from that link "If the programmer inadvertently
mixes AVX and non-AVX vector instructions in the same code then there
is a penalty of 70 clock cycles for each transition between the two
forms."
Thank you for the pointer to the blog,
Rhys