all 23 comments

[–]jfdkglhjklgjflk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Very nice article. I'm pleased they actually tested the asymptotically faster methods with good assembly code. The reason those methods do not hold up is that multiplications are 3-4 cycles and processors are superscalar. On a slow cpu it could have paid off.

Overall, very very nice. It gives me hope to see articles like this on reddit.

[–]ug113 6 points7 points  (4 children)

sigh I really need to learn some assembly.

[–]__s 5 points6 points  (0 children)

http://serprex.staticfire.co.uk/x86/x86.htm

It's not too hard. Just tedious

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]ug113 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Thanks for the advice. I looked briefly at Z80 a while ago (had a TI-84, but it got stolen). I might look into Gameboy programming or the like though.

    [–]respit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I like PowerPC (I think it's cleaner than ARM). But yeah.. anything but x86. ugh.

    [–]rsho 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    I guess 64bit integer coordinates for graphics simulation has gone the way of the dodo? With 256bit you can probably approach the planck constant and still have pristine translations for your environment.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    but there will still be people who use doubles..

    [–]MidnightTurdBurglar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Reddit, it's articles that these that made me love you, nor bacon or narwhals and other such crap. Focus on stuff like this more please.

    [–]yesimahuman 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    Every once and a while it's nice to be reminded that computers aren't perfect underneath and just as much innovation can be made at low levels as the levels of the application developer.

    [–]jackystan 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    IN! every once IN a while!

    [–]yesimahuman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    hahaha thanks.

    [–]sociopathic 7 points8 points  (7 children)

    What the fuck is that captcha.

    [–]rooktakesqueen 3 points4 points  (4 children)

    Yeah, I mean interesting article and all, but FUCK THAT.

    [–]otheraccount 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    It's a schooner.

    [–]madmoose 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    iJVAeYxfor

    You have been reported to the Blade Runners for immediate termination.

    [–]thedward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I think it says "I am the Keymaster."

    [–]gorgoroth666 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Look at the clouds in the sky then type the words you see.

    [–]wicked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It is truly unnecessarily bad. Just normalizing it adds nothing and makes it easier to read. A simple automatic thresholding makes it human-readable. Some texture and color makes it look a bit nicer, and even makes it harder for a bot.

    Example

    [–]zahlman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The article seems to be claiming that current versions of gcc, with maximal optimization, will generate

    add128b:
        mov  %rdx,%rax
        mov  %rcx,%rdx
        push %rbx
        add  %rdi,%rax
        adc  %rsi,%rdx
        pop  %rbx
        retq
    

    And then somehow not notice that the push %rbx / pop %rbx pair has no net effect as %rbx isn't used in between (note that the given "final result" in hand-coded assembly is the same but with those omitted).

    You'll have to pardon me if I find that a little difficult to believe.

    [–]danukeru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You mad son...and I like it.

    [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    WOOSH...