10100+ entries in 0.007s
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, the point has legs -- what we've done here very much can be done ands re-done, and with cuntoo/ada-gnat/etc stack spitting out statics, it might even come close.
mircea_popescu: kinda what i understood, that cmp USED TO BE expensive, but is no longer.
mircea_popescu: if the zcx's cmp WERE slower than sjlj's test, then we should see the latter be faster on 0 handlers than the former!
mircea_popescu: she corrected the numbers, it's 90 for zcx 93 for sjlj at the best.
mircea_popescu: well, i won't trust my own understanding of asm and contemporary cpus as far as i can throw it ; but if indeed the operands in zcx impl were slower, you'd see it take less time!!!1
mircea_popescu: yeah but the pipe is built such that this is also ~0 cost electrically
mircea_popescu: one part of the problem might be that sjlj comes from a time before, when insanities like that snippet above were standard. but no time since the millenium do you see it instead of the cmp etc.
mircea_popescu: are you basically saying this sub eax, 1 ; test eax, eax ; jz loc_601 is optimal approach ?
mircea_popescu: one that's due to the method, and the other that's due to the fact zcx was a lot narrowly-er massaged
mircea_popescu: rather, i can't shake this impression that sjlj saddles us with two segments of overhead
mircea_popescu: (the 52 is cuz i took the 13 items and multiplied by 4, forgetting that these are actually byte alligned not 64-bit alligned)
mircea_popescu: what does it do with the rest of the frame, from the bytes we see to the 184 ?
mircea_popescu: no i know where you got the sub param from, what im asking is,
mircea_popescu: the observation that perhaps sjlj is not actually as tightly optimized as zcx is trying to percolate through my brain
mircea_popescu: look here : lines 1 through 9 in zcx add up to 13 bytes, yes ?
mircea_popescu: prolly a bunch of try()catch semantics in "all programs"
mircea_popescu: ^even handled sjlj is not really that bad, 7us per call far far from end of world.
mircea_popescu: (in fairness though, no program ever does the sort of calling insanity we do here, so irl this may be very mild indeed)
mircea_popescu: it really blew my fucking mind! ZERO COST, they said!!!
mircea_popescu: diana_coman can we do with 2 and 3 extra handlers as a bonus plox ?
mircea_popescu: ie, what the docs don't say is the juciest bit at all : if you do not have extra handlers, zcx is MASSACRING you on calls.
mircea_popescu: specifically stated, this program takes to run : 1 with sjlh, no handlers ; 30 (up 3000%) with zcx, irrespective of handler count ; 5295 (a further 200% up) with sjlj and one extra handler.
mircea_popescu: diana_coman wait wait, so it's in fact a HUGE penalty to use zcx is you have no extra handlers ?
mircea_popescu: alright ; then try smaller sizes, x=4m might fit for both for instance, and it's still in the zone.
mircea_popescu: (it will doubtless be MUCH larger, but the issue here is time not so much space)
mircea_popescu: a cool. ok, so 22mn takes 1.25 s i'd say it's in the zone, and we're good as such.
mircea_popescu: or is the idea you meanwhile fixed the stack size issue
mircea_popescu: diana_coman i don't get it, so it crashed with 16mn but worked with 22mn ?
mircea_popescu: can set it back when done, it happens to be one of the more sensible / useful limits in there, which is why few even know about it.
mircea_popescu: so setrlimit to whatever is reasonable (here i'd expect no less than 832mb)
mircea_popescu: diana_coman possibly have to alter the linux config alf was mentioning it, blows out the 2mb stack max default.
mircea_popescu: anyway, on the upside, it is not possible x= 16777216 can be accomodated on any stack pages of any extant or soon to be devised irons, it still needs at least 4 bytes per call if not 52.
mircea_popescu: from previous experience if we get it to 1-3 s we're far into convergence territory anyway.
mircea_popescu: diana_coman take out the Encrypt(KS, Plain, Encr); line, this is just empty procedure calls.
mircea_popescu: consider the math : i go out to eat, i eat at $100 a plate joint. i go out for a show, or a bender, or a casino trip, or what have you, i come back thousands lighter. meanwhile what's your living space, 100 sqm ? 1000 sqm ? you'll get fucking lost in an acre, really. with modern insulation what's the lossage, a few cents a day ? how THE FUCK will you care so much about the cent as to go cold rather than use electricity, while
mircea_popescu: and once they go away, what will i use ? there's a case for using electricity for heating if MOST of energy produced is electricity. because heating relatively small outlay, all things considered.
mircea_popescu: but the natgas will run out ; and the little house-sized powerplants that it enables will go away, i can't burn pitch in there.
mircea_popescu: anyway, re above trends : there's a very visible trend in energy generation away from low quality and towards high quality. this means absolutely a move away from everything and into nuclear. as nuclear increases and fossils drop, the outlook will significantly change -- eg in romania i'd have not even considered heating on any other premise than natgas ; bathroom had eg towel rack consisting of hot water pipes and other such
mircea_popescu: i dunno how i could say that, looking at teh data. it's not about what social media says, nothing ever is.
mircea_popescu: the problem with economically useful preciction isn't getting the trends right, it's getting the timing right.
mircea_popescu: this is an ancient theme, even appears in say the gladstone speech you asked for recently. "first man, spent 1/4mn pounds, got no coal. 2nd man, spent 100k, got no coal. 3rd man got coal"
mircea_popescu: so i expect to see it before i die, but i do not expect to spend anything on it this mid term.
mircea_popescu: it seems to me premature yet. on my judgement, there was a lot of optimisim at the chump level re obama's bullshit electro-rooves. that will have to blow over, as it was a scam. consumer market will reel a while in disdain-distrust of "such nonsense".
mircea_popescu: why necessary event has not happened yet is sometimes explicable (if sun will burn out eventually, then why not yet ?!?!) but not always (say mom, if i'm gonna lose my virginity eventually, how come no girl fucked me yet ?!?!?!")
mircea_popescu: except as per teh "three ring binder" theory, it doesn't actually require anything besides their being made.
mircea_popescu: because i don't care about tiles enough to make my own yet.
mircea_popescu: but i don't care what it costs in the sense i will have it done, not in the sense that i will have it done in the most expensive way possible. if there's bitcoin mining tiles and simple tiles available, i am buying the former.
mircea_popescu: because i WILL heat my bathroom floor so my whores can suck my cock barefoot rather than live in frigid 80s sovoklands.