|
|
|
|
|
by paulfr
3965 days ago
|
|
> the one other researchers (which I respect much more) discovered in 2006 You seem to be blissfully unaware that they're in fact the same researchers: André Seznec is a co-author of the paper. This paper is valuable in pointing out that ITTAGE branch prediction performance is a very good predictor of Haswell performance. Because the Haswell algorithm is secret, that should be very helpful to developers who still have to care about branch prediction. Interpreter developers shouldn't ignore pre-Haswell chips just yet, but if you were to, say, develop a new language your design decisions should be guided by where the puck will be rather than where it used to be. |
|
He's the third signer of the current paper but the first of the 2006 one. It's the case of legitimizing the "research" which only confirms exactly what Intel recently implemented in a given CPU generation, even if the grant is for other goals ("ground-breaking, high-risk projects"). Or, to be clearer, I respect the deeds not the persons.
I fully understand the need for Seznec to be able to claim that the algorithm is really used by Intel and that therefore he co-authored the last paper. But confirming that Intel used ITTAGE is "ground-breaking, high-risk"? No. And does that mean we should never use goto label in the tight loops? No.