New HJWasm release

[habran]

Sorry JJ, I was busy these days to fix HJWasm
Try it now please, it is updated on Terraspace 8)

[TWell]

This one you built above doesn't debug on source level in 32 bit

That AVX was missing too :redface:
I was testing m32lib compile only as there is a lot file access.

PS: have anyone old Vista DDK ? Is there libc.lib (VS 2005?)

[jj2007]

Sorry JJ, I was busy these days to fix HJWasm
Try it now please, it is updated on Terraspace 8)

Code Select Expand

OxPT_Assembler HJWasm32 ; 2.7
OxPT_Assembler HJWasm64 ; 3.0 secs, and yes, it's 64-bit code
OxPT_Assembler AsmC ; 2.5 secs
:t

[habran]

Thanks JJ :t
So, taking in consideration that ASMC has most important parts translated to asm, and has less code to run, that is amazing speed.
With  HJWasm64 you are testing 32 bit code optimized for 32 bit, that is why it is slower than HJWasm32,
we should try opposite. I am planing to write some code optimized for x64 and than we will see how it will perform 8)

[TWell]

From VC6 samples:
# When building single-threaded applications you can link your executable
# with either LIBC, LIBCMT, or CRTDLL, although LIBC will provide the best
# performance.

[habran]

AFAIK  LIBCMT, is for static build and LIBC for dynamic build>
Where is that LIBC.LIB which you gave me the link for?
Isn't it from msvc2005?

[TWell]

libc.lib is a static library.
libc.lib can found from Windows NT 5.2 DDK (Server 2003 SP1) and x64 from 5.2.3790.2075.51.PlatformSDK_Svr2003R2_rtm too.

I can't inspect Vista DDK :(

[habran]

Hi TWell,
The one you build the last is working fine but I can't test for the speed
I have fixed some minor errors in hll.c and added a new feature to the .SWITCH block, so we will upgrade tonight or tomorrow.
If you give me your email address I will send you new hll.c for testing

[TWell]

With VisualCppBuildTools2015

Code Select Expand

5.418s        asmc
8.596s        HJWasm64.exe
12.372s       hjwa64-2015.exe
Not bad eh??

[habran]

VS2015 sucks :(
I prefer this one:

Code Select Expand

OxPT_Assembler HJWasm32 ; 2.7
OxPT_Assembler HJWasm64 ; 3.0 secs, and yes, it's 64-bit code
OxPT_Assembler AsmC ; 2.5 secs
:t

[jj2007]

In practice, I use AsmC for testing, not only because it's fastest but also because it gives direct feedback, i.e. you can see

Code Select Expand


Assembling: C:\Masm32\MasmBasic\libtmpAA.asm
Assembling: C:\Masm32\MasmBasic\libtmpAB.asm
Assembling: C:\Masm32\MasmBasic\libtmpAC.asm
Assembling: C:\Masm32\MasmBasic\libtmpAD.asm
while it is assembling. JWasm and ML 6.15 do the same, most others let you wait until everything is complete, which is less nice to watch. But that is a very personal preference, of course 8)

Btw it would be nice if Nidud or Habran or both could identify the innermost loop that makes the assembly slow. We are experts here in speeding up C code...

Re "others let you wait until everything is complete": would fflush(..) after each module help?

[habran]

New HJWasm uploaded on Terraspace with some bug fixes and hopefully some speed improvement for the .SWITCH block hll

[jj2007]

Timings for building the MB library are unchanged.

Code Select Expand

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz
Assembled with HJWasm32
20 ms   case 260, MB Switch_ table
197 ms  case 260, MB Switch_ chain
370 ms  case 260, Masm32 switch
46 ms   case 260, HJWasm .Switch

19 ms   case 196, MB Switch_ table
146 ms  case 196, MB Switch_ chain
277 ms  case 196, Masm32 switch
46 ms   case 196, HJWasm .Switch

19 ms   case 132, MB Switch_ table
104 ms  case 132, MB Switch_ chain
186 ms  case 132, Masm32 switch
46 ms   case 132, HJWasm .Switch

19 ms   case 68, MB Switch_ table
62 ms   case 68, MB Switch_ chain
98 ms   case 68, Masm32 switch
46 ms   case 68, HJWasm .Switch

19 ms   case 4, MB Switch_ table
20 ms   case 4, MB Switch_ chain
5 ms    case 4, Masm32 switch
46 ms   case 4, HJWasm .Switch

2989    bytes for MbTable
4840    bytes for MbChain
4799    bytes for Masm32
5729    bytes for hjwasm

[habran]

Thanks JJ,
It looks like we have at least stable speed, considering it is written in C language it is pretty good.
It is probably possible to make it little bit faster with some more optimization.

[habran]

Hi JJ,
Can you please test this build with the same sources you did with the last one to see if there is the difference in speed?