JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  2003

COMP-FORTRAN-90 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fortran 95 on Opteron

From:

David LaFrance-Linden <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:33:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

   Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:57:56 -0800
   From: keith bierman <[log in to unmask]>

   Peter Shenkin wrote:
   >
   >I suspect the only thing a 64-bit compilation will buy
   >you on Opteron is extra address space, which is good if
   >
   As far as I can tell (and I lack hands on experience so this is a bit
   second hand) the biggest improvement are the increased number of
   registers available. So this is quite different than the experience on
   many other 32->64 bit transitions ... there is a reason why otherwise
   32-bit codes will often run faster on an Opteron (with a suitably
   modified compiler).

There are several inter-related issues that I didn't see covered, so
I'll give this a whack.

Most systems have access to 64 bit data types, be they called
'INTEGER*8' or 'long' or 'long long' for integers, and 'REAL*8' or
'double' or 'long double' for reals.

CPUs have various registers of various sizes. 32-bit CPUs when
dealing with 64-bit data generally have to use two registers, so 64
bit data can increase register pressure. CPUs with 64-bit registers
generally use one register per datum, even if the datum is 32, 16 or 8
bits; i.e., you generally can't over-use a register just because you
aren't taking advantage of its full width. I get the impression from
this discussion that Opteron in "64-bit mode" has more and perhaps
wider registers available. CPUs often have separate integer and
floating registers, so the count and width may depend on the type.

CPUs have memory addressing capabilities. The 80186 had a segment
register (4 bits?) which would get loaded before doing a segmented
memory operation with a 16 bit offset. Thus, 20 bits of addrss space
on a 16 bit machine. 32 bit machines are generally limitted to 32
bits of virtual address space. 64 bit machines generally have 40+
bits of virtual and physical addressing CAPABILITY. However, many
vendors offer a compilation and/or linking mode (in cahoots with the
OS and runtimes) to keep all addresses within 31 or 32 bits. There
are two primary reasons for doing this: (1) a lot of source is not "clean"
typically meaning some apps assume an int and a pointer occupy the
same amount of storage, and (2) memory footprint and cache effects
from memory poitner sizes.

The registers for data types and the memory addressing issues are
generally independent. If compilers,etc for Opteron (or any other
processor) provides more and wider registers in "64 bit mode" and can
continue keeping memory and pointers in 32 bits, that's the best
situation for many apps that don't need large addressing capability.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
February 2023
November 2022
September 2022
February 2022
January 2022
June 2021
November 2020
September 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager