ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by logicchains on Saturday December 20, 2014 @08:51AM (#8776622)

Interestingly, now that someone submitted a change to the Java implementation, such that it doesn't use classes (unboxing is simulated by using arrays for the data instead), it runs much closer to native speed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by 0xFFC on Saturday December 20, 2014 @09:07AM (#8776646)

can you explain a little further ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by logicchains on Saturday December 20, 2014 @09:30AM (#8776702)

I think it's easier to read the code:

https://github.com/logicchains/LPATHBench/blob/master/jv.jav...

Instead of a vector of node classes, there's a

    static final int[][] nodes;

Which is used in a similar manner to a vector of node classes, but due to containing primitives (ints) is unboxed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by igouy on Sunday December 21, 2014 @01:29PM (#8780453)

When "the longest path problem" is reduced to indexed-access to an integer-sequence, does it become a duplicate of fannkuch?

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by weitzj on Saturday December 20, 2014 @10:38AM (#8776856)

and you do not copy the bool array around as it was done in the previous version

[ Parent | on HN ]