flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > another speedups

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Embrance



Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 116
Location: Greece
Embrance
As i see thres a speed opmtimizasion of 30-150%(in some cses.)
Thats good!Wink
On small programs none will see any difference i belive,but on bigger projects it will be important.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 07:04
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Embrance wrote:
As i see thres a speed opmtimizasion of 30-150%(in some cses.)
Thats good!Wink
On small programs none will see any difference i belive,but on bigger projects it will be important.


IMHO, more important is that now there is no clearly defined bottleneck in FASM architecture. Preprocessor was the last module that was not optimized for speed.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 08:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
MCD



Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 604
Location: Germany
MCD
Sounds all very good. But in case where people want to use only 32bit 80x86 code and want to get rid of the 64bit extensions, how could they port these speed improvements into the old 32bit Fasm preprocessor/parser? Is there anybody who need such an only 32bit assembler thing?
Post 18 Feb 2005, 11:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Since the implementation of x86-64 long mode does not cause any performance reduction nor incompatibility and the executable growth is also not that much, such thing shouldn't be really needed.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 11:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
HAHAA FASM kicked other assemblers before and now its time to make new diagrams like the ones between 1.50,1.51 somewhere in the forum - like how far have we gone with this speed and what about the linearity of the growth in time - is it still a bit exponential or has it gone even more linear?
Post 18 Feb 2005, 11:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MCD



Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 604
Location: Germany
MCD
Madis731 wrote:
HAHAA FASM kicked other assemblers before and now its time to make new diagrams like the ones between 1.50,1.51 somewhere in the forum - like how far have we gone with this speed and what about the linearity of the growth in time - is it still a bit exponential or has it gone even more linear?


Donno, I guess the speed growth of software in general would best resembles to the logistic growth, but with some random elements in it.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 12:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Matrix



Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1171
Location: Overflow
Matrix
hy
executable growth? use som exe packer, fasm can be shrinked if you'd like, i have tested it. it can be well compressed.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 14:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
decard



Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 1092
Location: Poland
decard
executable has grown just by a few kbytes, it is actually nothing...
Post 18 Feb 2005, 16:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Embrance



Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 116
Location: Greece
Embrance
JohnFound wrote:
IMHO, more important is that now there is no clearly defined bottleneck in FASM architecture. Preprocessor was the last module that was not optimized for speed

Bottleneck?You mean limit?


Privalov wrote:
Since the implementation of x86-64 long mode does not cause any performance reduction nor incompatibility and the executable growth is also not that much, such thing shouldn't be really needed.


How much is this growth?Is it a standard or depends on how big the file prosesed is?
Post 18 Feb 2005, 16:03
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Embrance wrote:
How much is this growth?Is it a standard or depends on how big the file prosesed is?

I mean the size of FASM executable. The size of output executables can be even smaller with new version sometimes, as I have also corrected the instruction optimization for one (rare) case.
Post 18 Feb 2005, 16:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Embrance



Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 116
Location: Greece
Embrance
Oh,i thuog th files prodused form FASM!Good to know nothing is chnaged thought!
Post 18 Feb 2005, 17:48
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
I put the 1.58 gui interface into the 1.59.3 folder, and it compiled into an fasmw.exe ok. But when I loaded in some of my source code, and tried to compile it, it gave me an out of memory error. Does anyone have the gui verion compiled yet?
Post 18 Feb 2005, 23:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Have you tried setting up more memory in a compiler options? Preprocessor eats a bit more of memory now.
Post 19 Feb 2005, 00:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Have ~280 mb to spare after windows loads, So I Set the memory option to 192mb, which should be quite plenty. Is it trying to allocate dos memory by mistake? Maybe this is it?
MadMatt
Post 19 Feb 2005, 10:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Remeber to replace the
Code:
include '..\..\x86.inc'    

in FASM.INC with
Code:
include '..\..\x86_64.inc'    

Maybe that was causing the problem.
Post 19 Feb 2005, 11:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
I guessed that much, It wouldn't compile if I didn't Smile . I also had to use the %fasminc% for the win32a.inc includes, but I don't think this would cause the problem. Hopefully there is a quick fix, but if not, I'll just wait until the next release. Wink
Post 19 Feb 2005, 17:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
iklin



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Location: Russia, Siberia
iklin
madmatt wrote:
I put the 1.58 gui interface into the 1.59.3 folder, and it compiled into an fasmw.exe ok. But when I loaded in some of my source code, and tried to compile it, it gave me an out of memory error. Does anyone have the gui verion compiled yet?


I try to do so and for me it works fine. Smile
Post 20 Feb 2005, 04:37
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Have a working version now! Surprised I had to drop the includes into the folder, instead of just using %fasminc% into the old directory. Thanks for everyones help. Very Happy
Post 20 Feb 2005, 07:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
I Spoke too soon. I try an compile some of my Direct3d code and it crashes, other times it gives me an 'out of memory error', on version 1.58 everything works fine. I've included a crashdump by Dr. Watson so you can see where the crash happened. Look toward the bottom of the text.
Post 20 Feb 2005, 08:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Hi guys - I'll try once again:

I didn't mean executable growth, but EXPONENTIAL growth in TIME, when bigger projects are met - like somebody mentioned we might as well call it logarithmic growth.

I want you to take a look at THIS: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=854&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50
topic and see how FASM jumped from 1.50 to 1.51 - I think it would be fun to test the speed of FASMs different parts and put them in a graph where we can compare them with other versions and assemblers.
Post 20 Feb 2005, 10:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.