Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU C Library Dropping Various SSSE3 Optimized Code Paths

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GNU C Library Dropping Various SSSE3 Optimized Code Paths

    Phoronix: GNU C Library Dropping Various SSSE3 Optimized Code Paths

    The latest GNU C Library (Glibc) development code this week has begun dropping various SSSE3 optimized code paths...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    I expected new extensions to be called SSSSE4, SSSSSE5, ...

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder sometimes why organizations use old operating systems in production still, but this may be why. On older hardware you can actually squeeze more performance out of older software because it is better optimized for it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cl333r View Post
        I expected new extensions to be called SSSSE4, SSSSSE5, ...
        Due to Software Defined Silicone they'll start over with $$E.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by atomsymbol
          If it was generated (not handwritten) code then there would most likely be no need to remove it.
          If we're to believe the glibc developers who created and approved these patches the main reason is to reduce the binary size, since CPU's that prefer SSE3 are increasingly rare.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by atomsymbol
            If it was generated (not handwritten) code then there would most likely be no need to remove it.
            It is (or should we say was) handwritten assembler.

            Comment


            • #7
              Heh. I've still got a dual 5150 system I use quite regularly. Been meaning to upgrade it to a pair of 5160s. 32GB of Sun RAM.
              System: $5. CPUs: $5. RAM: $75.

              Should also move to an SSD rather than those ancient hard drives. Would help the boot time tremendously I think.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
                Heh. I've still got a dual 5150 system I use quite regularly. Been meaning to upgrade it to a pair of 5160s. 32GB of Sun RAM.
                System: $5. CPUs: $5. RAM: $75.

                Should also move to an SSD rather than those ancient hard drives. Would help the boot time tremendously I think.
                Immensely. In addition to the boot speed, programs will also load and run much, much faster.

                Most consumers who no nothing about PCs will notice a HDD to SSD upgrade more than they'd notice going from Core or FX to Something Lake or Zen Number.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                  I wonder sometimes why organizations use old operating systems in production still, but this may be why.
                  No, the reason is the cost and complexity of making sure all the stuff you use has a working replacement available on the new system.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Benchmarks where run on Zhaoxin KX-6840@2000MHz
                    I hope they think about testing this out on Intel and AMD systems before they "just do it". Few in the West have those processors so the one data point on performance is only relevant to China while GLIBC has a global audience.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X