Branch Misses

How bad do branch misses hurt a programs performance? In C and Java?

for example how big of an impact would :


int shitinanus()
{
    int val = getanus();
    if(val != 0)
        return ANALTONIGHT;
    return ALONETONIGHT;
}

be knowing that val will most likely be 0 99% of the time compared to the below function


int shitinanus()
{
    int val = getanus();
    if(val == 0)
        return ALONETONIGHT;
    return ANALTONIGHT;
}

>>40
The code is in >>1 all I did was to tightly loop it and then replace if (val != 0) with if (val).

>>41
Could you post the complete code, with the loop?

>>26
I was pointing out what you're talking about is non standard. You're more than welcome to try and cite any passage in one the the various ANSI/ISO C standards or JSP that supports anything that is being talked about in this thread.

So to put this in terms your jewish ass can understand, branch misses are platform specific, and hence, not covered by any of the standard. Get it hourly worker boy?

>>43
Kill yourself faggot.

>>43
Most code you write for actual devices that are not personal computers is written for a specific platform. Get back to your enterprise-grade cubicle. I'll be here with my robots.

>>43
Why do you keep trying to sell us this "C standards" nonsense?  We know it's snake oil, completely useless for real programming.  Nobody here is buying any, so you should go spam somewhere else.

>>46
Have you ever written a single like of production level code for any firm?

>>47
like

>>45
That is why you have a make file you illiterate jew.

>>43
You don't need to point out the grotesquely obvious, you retarded midget. There's nothing in this thread that even marginally touches portability issues. There's nothing in this thread that could suggest, even in a fanciful gay dream your feeble brain could produce, that anything so far discussed could ever be portable, or standardized, or even preferred over portable code. It is horribly clear from the context that everything cited so far is non-standard, but you seem to lack very basic text comprehension skills.

Also, don't worry about citing standards. I know more, much more about standards than they actually deserve. In fact, I probably know more about every programming subject than you could ever hope to understand, and it's likely that I'm not alone. After all, you surely haven't correctly grasped a single bit of information from anything you've ever read in your life -- considering you have actually read anything --, since you just haven't been properly alphabetized.

>>50
You don't need to point out the grotesquely obvious, you retarded midget.

What do you do again for a living? What's your job title and company you work for? How many millions of people use the software that you write?

There's nothing in this thread that even marginally touches portability issues.

The context of the question revolved around C and Java. Ya know you fucking nigger, most people who ask questions not related to any standard would word the question differently.

I know more, much more about standards than they actually deserve. In fact, I probably know more about every programming subject than you could ever hope to understand

Oh really? So have you actually served on a committee? If so, can you please share the committee name and dates.

After all, you surely haven't correctly grasped a single bit of information from anything you've ever read in your life

You're projecting. Go scrub another toilet you fucking jew.

>>50
I remember one time he entered a discussion about assembly and argued that it was outside the scope of standard C and consequently threw an autistic fit when he was informed that the discussion was not about C at all.

He uses the standard like his bible and is completely unable to understand anything beyond its scope, like basic reading comprehension. I guess you could say that he's a, Creationist.

YEAHHHHHHHH

>>52
You also need to go scrub another toilet.

GNU-C and -fno-strict-aliasing. Everything else is for mental faggots.

>>53
My toilet is quite dirty indeed, I will do that tomorrow.

You are the slightly more intellectual equivalent of 'my dad works at Nintendo'. What is this wonderous software you write, and can you answer your own requirements of providing the name, product, and proof that you worked on it?

But I suspect you cannot, because none of your answers actually made sense at any point in the thread. Resorting to ad hominems and spouting inappropriate jargon that has nothing to do with the subject (USE MAKEFILES!) just marks you as either a delusional skiddie or a troll which I am currently feeding.

Please go back to reddit.

>>52
I LOVE YOU! I LOVE YOUR POST! I READ IT FIVE TIMES! KEEP POSTING!

C is my favorite language. I feel ashamed. I feel ashamed for Dennis Ritchie. Please don't think all C users are retarded like this guy.

>>58
Most of this thread is pretty bad. I feel dirty for posting in it.

>>59
I feel dirty for posting in it.
You should feel bad for not using the sage function when posting in it.

^SLACKWARE_SUPREMACY^SLACKWARE_SUPREMACY

>>60
*bump*

>>62
*sage*

Standards considered harmful, enjoy your state of being worthless.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/standards/

If I had followed standards... no innovation... failure.  Cannot win without breaking standards.

I marvel at the stupidity of these people:
http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page

Have you ever met a musician in a band that is ripping-off the sound of some trend?  They are totally clueless that unoriginal is worthless and they are delsuionally proud because they think they're good.

http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=24177

The secret to my success is compatibility.  The fewer the possible sources of incompatibility, the better.  Interrupts are not as robust as polling.

I tried my OS on about 4 machines over the years and it didn't work on any one without modification!  Just like "it's the economy stupid", "it's compatibility stupid."

God says...
C:\TEXT\Brief\AUGUST.TXT

be hidden from it, it wills not.  But the contrary is requited
it, that itself should not be hidden from the Truth; but the Truth
is hid from it.  Yet even thus miserable, it had rather joy in truths
than in falsehoods.  Happy then will it be, when, no distraction
interposing, it shall joy in that only Truth, by Whom all things are
true.

See what a space I have gone over in my memory seeking Thee, O Lord;
and I have not found Thee, without it.  Nor have I found any thing
concerning Thee, but what

Not working on any one begs the question, "Does it work for anybody."  I get no emails but I'm #1 google rank.  That's a little odd, don't ya think?

God says...
C:\TEXT\BIBLE.TXT

 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of
Olives.

26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of
me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the
sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be
offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto the

>>65
You forgot the bible quote, faggot.

>>52
Yes, the guy's so inept he failed to see that there are about three or four different people arguing with him (or, more precisely, being heavily trolled by him). Yet he took all of them for a single one. I guess this is indeed a sign of autism.

>>56
Fuck off, misfit. You trolled us hard already.

>>64
>>65
There's a very important point on creating and conforming to standards. However, as far as compliance goes, there are very few important implementations that fully comply to a given document. This makes people inevitably depend on extensions (since they won't and shouldn't bother, for example, sprinkling #ifdefs to detect particular differences between C compilers), specially because most people don't even know about standards, or don't bother reading long, prolix documents that, in practice, only diminishes their productivity.

Also, as per definition a standard encompasses the minimum common set of features for a given set of architectures, they always tend to deny support for newer technology (and by newer I actually mean "concurrent execution" and "networking" in pure C, as incredible as it seems), sticking only with long-dated primitivisms.

All of this means that one can expect much less than he wished for when dealing with standards, since they fail grossly on solving the single problem they were supposed to solve: portability.

For example, there is a ridiculous number of compilers that -fully- comply to C99: GCC and MSVC ain't two of them. (C99 is a ten-year-old document already, and C1X is already being baked.) The situation is much worse for C++98.

>>69


Holy Shit!  Somebody intelligent and honest from outside the wall!  I've had nothing but indirect talk and "Piccard, how many lights do you see?"

Hold-on. 

This little fucker...
http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12087&start=1080

I was using the CPUID to check for 64-bit capable and print a message if not.  I was reading abn OSDev story and they had code that checkded first if the bit to check for 64-bit was present.  I was like, "Oh, I guess I could add that."  NExt thing I know, they're wanting credit--like my operating system is written by me and John Smith.  I said "fuck that".  I removed the extra test for ancient processors.

http://www.losethos.com/code/BootCD.html

To this day, it doesn't have it.  Fortunately OSDev has been pretty useless.  I joke -- "Whatever you do, don't ever read GPL code or you cannot ever work for a real company cause you will have seen things first, there, and cannot use them!"

The bigger question is, "How the fuck have people been watching me and what an annoyance that it's not the same people who would know that I wrote everything and they're pestering me!"

I guess it's Heaven--Monty Python argument clinic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

>>69
56 was actually a response to the troll..

>>69
56 was actually a response to the troll..

>>69
Also, as per definition a standard encompasses the minimum common set of features for a given set of architectures, they always tend to deny support for newer technology (and by newer I actually mean "concurrent execution" and "networking" in pure C, as incredible as it seems),

Do you realize how much legacy code would break if you would attempt to incorporate "concurrent execution" and "networking" into the standard? I bet you don't.

>>73
None, since these are additions, not semantic changes.

You? Oh, you're just another teenager with social disabilities that doesn't even know what "legacy code" really is.

>>74
I'm with >>73. In a concurrent environment some semantics will change underneath you. Non-reentrant code becomes unsafe.

But I'm with you too. C is old.

>>75
Legacy code would still be single-threaded, suffering no harm from such situations. (I'm not talking about automatic parallelism.) For new code, reentrant versions of classic routines would exist (as in POSIX).

There would be new semantic requirements for memory fencing, atomic operations and guarantee of execution progress, similar to those documented by POSIX and C++11, but still legacy code wouldn't be affected, except by potential symbol name collision.

>>31

Lame-da Calcyaless.

SQWARK SQWARK!

>>77
Typical Jew.

>>78

#include <conio.h>

>>78
Tropical Chew