Re: Greatest Common Divisor - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Greatest Common Divisor
Date
Msg-id 15070.1578097070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Greatest Common Divisor  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Greatest Common Divisor  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-01-03 18:49:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On a machine with single-cycle divide, it's likely that the extra
>> compare-and-branch is a net loss.

> Which architecture has single cycle division? I think it's way above
> that, based on profiles I've seen. And Agner seems to back me up:
> https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
> That lists a 32/64 idiv with a latency of ~26/~42-95 cycles, even on a
> moder uarch like skylake-x.

Huh.  I figured Intel would have thrown sufficient transistors at that
problem by now.  But per that result, it's worth having the swap step
even on CISC, never mind RISC.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: sidewinder has one failure
Next
From: Mikael Kjellström
Date:
Subject: Re: sidewinder has one failure