Index
> Main > another speedupsGoto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
| Author |
|
|
JohnFound 17 Feb 2005, 07:09
Really great work. The preprocessor was the most slow part of FASM.
Now the preprocessor is twice faster than the old one. As a test I use Fresh sources: Old preprocessor: 0.669 s New preprocessor: 0.338 s Unfortunately, the computer in my office is too fast and the absolute times are too small to take more precise measurements. I will repeat the tests when I get back home, on slower machines. Regards. |
|||
17 Feb 2005, 07:09 |
|
|
madmatt 17 Feb 2005, 10:55
Very good work! I compiled the sources and could only get the command line version, Is the win editor version available yet?
|
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 10:55 |
|
|
MCD 17 Feb 2005, 11:33
Whewre can I get this alpa of the new 64bit fasm?
|
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 11:33 |
|
|
JohnFound 17 Feb 2005, 11:55
|
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 11:55 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 12:22
madmatt wrote: Very good work! I compiled the sources and could only get the command line version, Is the win editor version available yet? Copy the SOURCE catalog over the one from fasmw distribution and you can recompile the fasmw.exe with the new core. |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 12:22 |
|
|
pelaillo 17 Feb 2005, 12:39
Quote:
Yesterday at home I do a test and fasm complies itself in 10.7 seconds in my *new* 80386DX with 8 MB RAM  Tomorrow I will publish the results of improved fasm. |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 12:39 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 15:35
However more optimizations are "on the way" - I've just finished another set of nifty improvements to the new preprocessor symbols management and I still have the macro processor left - it also needs cleaning up and making some better loop-up algorithm for macro arguments. And only then I'm going back to ELF64 support.
If possible, please test thoroughly all the development releases - I would prefer any bug reports before I release the stable (even number) version. |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 15:35 |
|
|
decard 17 Feb 2005, 15:42
I make old P166 (with 64MB RAM) working, so I could test it with that machine. I compiled FASMW and Fresh.
Code:
| 1.58 | 1.59.2
-----------------------
fasmw | 3.8s | 2.6s
fresh | 23.2s | 13.8s
----------------------- on my PIII 600 I have only tried to compile Fresh, and it took 5 seconds with 1.58 and 3s with 1.59. Actually now there is no such a big programs written in FASM that would need faster compiler  Last edited by decard on 17 Feb 2005, 16:01; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 15:42 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 15:48
Please write the full version number - development versions have two digits. 1.59.3 is still going to be faster.
 |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 15:48 |
|
|
JohnFound 17 Feb 2005, 17:43
OK, here is more detailed report about FASM v1.59.2:
Code: Version tested: FASM 1.59.2 Reference version: FASM 1.58 Both compilers are implemented inside Fresh v1.1.D because of more precise time measurement for every compilation stage. Testing computer: CPU: AMD K6-2 450Mhz, overclocked to 500MHz (x5 100MHz FSB) Memory: 128MBytes OS: Windows 98 (without IE) Test sources: 1. Fresh v1.1.D with FASM 1.59.2 (Fresh) Total lines preprocessed: 211950 2. FASMW v1.58 with implemented compiler v1.59.2 (FASMW) Total lines preprocessed: 55163 3. Thingamy (current work version) (Thingamy) Total lines preprocessed: 73336 +--------+-------------------------+ | | Preprocessing time [s] | +--------+-------------+-----------+ | Source | FASM 1.59.2 | FASM 1.58 | +--------+-------------+-----------+ | Fresh | 1.743 | 4.736 | | FASMW | 0.301 | 0.768 | |Thingamy| 0.999 | 1.925 | +--------+-------------+-----------+ BTW: Privalov, could you post some breaf info about internals changins since 1.58, because when I implemented FASM 1.59.2 in Fresh some of its extended functions, concerning collecting of label information stop to work properly. Regards |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 17:43 |
|
|
scientica 17 Feb 2005, 18:30
Here's some times from me and my 64-bitter
Code: frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 test_program0.asm flat assembler version 1.59.1 3 passes, 741 bytes. real 0m0.002s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.001s ----------------- frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64.2 test_program0.asm flat assembler version 1.59.2 3 passes, 741 bytes. real 0m0.002s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s test_program is too small to beable tog give any reliable results (multiple runs gives too big variations ±0.002s - which is basically ±100%) so here's from a little (no irony, it's still very very small, tiny really) bigger project, though, please note that not only fasm is invoked but also gcc (among others) - but in this phase of the development the major time is spend in fasm - or well, before this release at least 
Code: frekla@zeus /mnt/dev/frekla/development/######## $ time make -B done! see /mnt/dev/frekla/development/########/compile.log for details. real 0m1.089s user 0m0.132s sys 0m0.148s (second run gave: "real\t0m0.299s\nuser\t0m0.114s\nsys\t0m0.167s") --------------------------- frekla@zeus /mnt/dev/frekla/development/######## $ time make -B AS="/mnt/dev/frekla/development/fasm/elf64/fasm64" done! see /mnt/dev/frekla/development/########/compile.log for details. real 0m0.291s user 0m0.119s sys 0m0.152s (first version is 1.57 the second 1.59.2) I'm on getoo, using linux 2.6.10-ck5. The CPU AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ (2202.918MHz), running in long mode, but the kernel got the IA32 support enabled (so fasm runs as 32-bit) and 1Gb RAM. btw, privalov, could you send me that big 400k labels-test file of yours? (I should get more reliable timings from that, the above files are small - there by not giving that accurate timings) |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 18:30 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 21:00
JohnFound wrote: BTW: Privalov, could you post some breaf info about internals changins since 1.58, because when I implemented FASM 1.59.2 in Fresh some of its extended functions, concerning collecting of label information stop to work properly. The changes in preprocessor are quite wide and large parts of my guide to internals are becoming obsolete. Please tell me which features are you using and I will check why it doesn't work no more (it might be also because some of the features are not complete in 1.59.2, I have fixed them later). There is also a small change in parser. The first double word of parser's label structure used to contain hash value, but now it contains the pointer to next label entry of the same hash, if there is no more such entries, it contains zero. |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 21:00 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 21:06
scientica wrote: btw, privalov, could you send me that big 400k labels-test file of yours? (I should get more reliable timings from that, the above files are small - there by not giving that accurate timings) I was just making it this way: Code: repeat 400000 db 'label' db '0'+(%/100000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/10000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/1000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/100) mod 10 db '0'+(%/10) mod 10 db '0'+(%/1) mod 10 db ' = 0',13,10 db 'db label' db '0'+(%/100000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/10000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/1000) mod 10 db '0'+(%/100) mod 10 db '0'+(%/10) mod 10 db '0'+(%/1) mod 10 db 13,10 end repeat You can also replace the = with EQU to test the new preprocessor engine, but beware when using earlier fasm versions - they were in no way adapted to handle such huge amounts of preprocessor symbols in a reasonable time. |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 21:06 |
|
|
scientica 17 Feb 2005, 22:22
ok, here are the timings:
Code: [10:37:08]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGen.asm flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 13200000 bytes. real 0m1.233s user 0m1.172s sys 0m0.044s frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGen.bin 400kLabelGen.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 1.9 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m1.967s user 0m1.850s sys 0m0.096s frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGenEqu.asm flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 14000000 bytes. real 0m1.234s user 0m1.186s sys 0m0.041s frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGenEqu.bin 400kLabelGenEqu.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m1.278s user 0m1.137s sys 0m0.090s frekla@zeus elf64 $ diff -s 400kLabelGenEqu.bin.out 400kLabelGen.bin.out Files 400kLabelGenEqu.bin.out and 400kLabelGen.bin.out are identical (400kLabelGenEqu.asm is using 'equ' instead of '=') and just for the fun of it, I made one version with fix instead of equ: Code: frekla@zeus elf64 $time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGenFix.asm flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 14000000 bytes. real 0m1.230s user 0m1.177s sys 0m0.043s frekla@zeus elf64 $time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGenFix.bin 400kLabelGenFix.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.2 1 passes, 0.9 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m1.001s user 0m0.881s sys 0m0.099s frekla@zeus elf64 $ diff -s 400kLabelGenFix.bin.out 400kLabelGen.bin.out Files 400kLabelGenFix.bin.out and 400kLabelGen.bin.out are identical frekla@zeus elf64 $ ll *.out -rw-r--r-- 1 frekla users 400000 Feb 17 22:38 400kLabelGen.bin.out -rw-r--r-- 1 frekla users 400000 Feb 17 22:40 400kLabelGenEqu.bin.out -rw-r--r-- 1 frekla users 400000 Feb 17 22:44 400kLabelGenFix.bin.out The timings are quite reasonable to me, but yeah 1.2 seconds is an eternity
oh, almost forgot, comparistion values: (didn't run the fix one with 1.57, should give about same time as equ (right?)) Code: frekla@zeus elf64 $ time fasm -m 128000 400kLabelGen.bin 400kLabelGen.bin.out-1.57 flat assembler version 1.57 1 passes, 4.1 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m4.298s user 0m4.020s sys 0m0.098s frekla@zeus elf64 $ time fasm -m 128000 400kLabelGenEqu.bin 400kLabelGenEgu.bin.out-1.57 flat assembler version 1.57 1 passes, 1015.5 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 16m55.522s user 16m37.155s sys 0m0.685s Unless I made an error in math, it's roughtly a 1:795 ratio (1.59.2 to 1.57) _________________ ... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself. - Bradley Kuhn |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 22:22 |
|
|
JohnFound 17 Feb 2005, 23:15
Privalov wrote: There is also a small change in parser. The first double word of parser's label structure used to contain hash value, but now it contains the pointer to next label entry of the same hash, if there is no more such entries, it contains zero. This was the problem, not the preprocessor. Thank you. The problem is within the LabelsList.asm - the module that creates list with labels for debuger and other IDE purposes after parsing stage. Until now, I use the hash value as a flag that the label is not anonymous (@@) label. Now in these records there is no pointer to the name as a second dword in the label structure, but some strange number. What is this number and how can be identified anonumous label without using the hash value in the first dword? Regards |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 23:15 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 Feb 2005, 23:39
There is just garbage, this field was not initialized at all in case of anonymous labels. I can make it be always zero if this is suitable for you.
BTW, can you also check how the changes I made when adding x86-64 support affected the speed of assembler module? |
|||
|
17 Feb 2005, 23:39 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 18 Feb 2005, 00:02
I've just uploaded the 1.59.3 - ready for testing.
|
|||
|
18 Feb 2005, 00:02 |
|
|
scientica 18 Feb 2005, 05:19
new timings:
Code: [06:17:51]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGen.asm flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 13200000 bytes. real 0m1.292s user 0m1.178s sys 0m0.043s [06:17:52]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGen.bin 400kLabelGen.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 1.9 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m1.980s user 0m1.673s sys 0m0.140s [06:17:54]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGenEqu.asm flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 14000000 bytes. real 0m1.256s user 0m1.175s sys 0m0.050s [06:17:55]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGenEqu.bin 400kLabelGenEqu.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 0.8 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m0.893s user 0m0.803s sys 0m0.077s [06:17:56]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 64000 400kLabelGenFix.asm flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 1.2 seconds, 14000000 bytes. real 0m1.259s user 0m1.181s sys 0m0.040s [06:17:58]frekla@zeus elf64 $ time ./fasm64 -m 128000 400kLabelGenFix.bin 400kLabelGenFix.bin.out flat assembler version 1.59.3 1 passes, 0.8 seconds, 400000 bytes. real 0m0.819s user 0m0.730s sys 0m0.074s |
|||
|
18 Feb 2005, 05:19 |
|
|
JohnFound 18 Feb 2005, 05:23
Privalov wrote: There is just garbage, this field was not initialized at all in case of anonymous labels. I can make it be always zero if this is suitable for you. I just implement FASM 1.59.3 in Fresh and everything works OK. (including "variable.inc"). Thanks. Quote: BTW, can you also check how the changes I made when adding x86-64 support affected the speed of assembler module? Actually my impression is that the speed of assembler module is the same or even insignificantly faster. Anyway, the difference is within the measurement error. I will try to test it once again tonight, on my home computer. Regards. |
|||
|
18 Feb 2005, 05:23 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|