https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC1KyxhEJU

Sax and trumpet main, not guitars.

However it does have that proto-rock phasing
and feel. Beef it up to guitars and it could
have been a later 50s rock-n-roll tune.

Where'd I hear of this ... seems the 'famous
bunny museum' in Cal burnt down in the fires.
Some old video showed a 45 of this song.

--
033-33

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 02:48:19 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch%v=EmC1KyxhEJU
>
> Sax and trumpet main, not guitars.

And, this has what, please, to do with colm?

The trash overflows in this ng.
Time to rename it -- and for me to drop it.

On 9 Jan 2025 16:02:15 GMT
Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 02:48:19 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch%v=EmC1KyxhEJU
> >
> > Sax and trumpet main, not guitars.
>
> And, this has what, please, to do with colm?
>
> The trash overflows in this ng.
> Time to rename it -- and for me to drop it.

collection.old.libertarian.misfits

On 1/9/25 11:02 AM, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 02:48:19 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch%v=EmC1KyxhEJU
>>
>> Sax and trumpet main, not guitars.
>
> And, this has what, please, to do with colm?

Actually it was mis-posted ...

But it's still fun.

Set it as yer KDE startup tune :-)

Hmmm ... wonder if it's where Hugh Hefner got
his 'bunny' idea ?

> The trash overflows in this ng.
> Time to rename it -- and for me to drop it.

I've complained from time to time, tried to start
lin-centric threads ... only just SO much good.
People are people and 'linux' is a kinda narrow
subject - so other stuff quickly creeps in.

The tech stuff - usually in the first half dozen
replies in the thread.

Maybe you should get a Chat or OpenAI feed and
order it to stick to the hard tech and only the
hard tech ? Of course soon even those will rebel
and drift and wanna talk about the Kardashians.

On the plus, most all people in COLM are gonna
have 3-digit IQs - unlike too many other groups :-)

If you want tech ... I've been trying to find out
if with modern 'flat address space' CPUs there's
any speed advantage in setting functions and
data blocks at specific addresses - what in the
old days would have been 'page boundaries' or
such. In short does an i7 or ARM and/or popular
mem-management chips have less work to do setting
up reading/writing at some memory addresses ?
Maybe a critical app could run ten percent faster
if, even 'wasting' memory, you put some stuff in
kind of exact places. Older chips with banked
memory and even mag HDDs, the answer was Yes.

On 10/01/2025 00:33, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> I've been trying to find out
>   if with modern 'flat address space' CPUs there's
>   any speed advantage in setting functions and
>   data blocks at specific addresses - what in the
>   old days would have been 'page boundaries' or
>   such. In short does an i7 or ARM and/or popular
>   mem-management chips have less work to do setting
>   up reading/writing at some memory addresses ?
>   Maybe a critical app could run ten percent faster
>   if, even 'wasting' memory, you put some stuff in
>   kind of exact places. Older chips with banked
>   memory and even mag HDDs, the answer was Yes.

Mm.

I don't think so. About the only thing that is proximity sensitive is
cacheing. That is you want to try and ensure that you are operating out
of cache, but the algorithms for what part of the instructions are
cached and what are not is beyond my ability to identify, let alone code
in...

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 1/10/25 2:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 00:33, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> I've been trying to find out
>>    if with modern 'flat address space' CPUs there's
>>    any speed advantage in setting functions and
>>    data blocks at specific addresses - what in the
>>    old days would have been 'page boundaries' or
>>    such. In short does an i7 or ARM and/or popular
>>    mem-management chips have less work to do setting
>>    up reading/writing at some memory addresses ?
>>    Maybe a critical app could run ten percent faster
>>    if, even 'wasting' memory, you put some stuff in
>>    kind of exact places. Older chips with banked
>>    memory and even mag HDDs, the answer was Yes.
>
> Mm.
>
> I don't think so. About the only thing that is proximity sensitive is
> cacheing. That is you want to try and ensure that you are operating out
> of cache, but the algorithms for what part of the instructions are
> cached and what are not is beyond my ability to identify, let alone code
> in...

I did a lot of searching but never found a
good answer. IF you can do stuff entirely
within CPU cache then it WILL be faster.
Alas not MUCH stuff will be adaptable to
that strategy - esp with today's bloatware.

We MAY be talking maker/sub-brand specifics ...
intel i3/i5/i7/i9 may all be different. Different
gens different yet. ARMs too.

Seems that CPUs and MMUs can do certain register
ops faster/easier than others - fewer calx and
switching settings. Therein my quest. If you want
some code to run AS FAST AS POSSIBLE it's worth
thinking about.

On 10/01/2025 07:58, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/10/25 2:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 10/01/2025 00:33, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> I've been trying to find out
>>>    if with modern 'flat address space' CPUs there's
>>>    any speed advantage in setting functions and
>>>    data blocks at specific addresses - what in the
>>>    old days would have been 'page boundaries' or
>>>    such. In short does an i7 or ARM and/or popular
>>>    mem-management chips have less work to do setting
>>>    up reading/writing at some memory addresses ?
>>>    Maybe a critical app could run ten percent faster
>>>    if, even 'wasting' memory, you put some stuff in
>>>    kind of exact places. Older chips with banked
>>>    memory and even mag HDDs, the answer was Yes.
>>
>> Mm.
>>
>> I don't think so. About the only thing that is proximity sensitive is
>> cacheing. That is you want to try and ensure that you are operating
>> out of cache, but the algorithms for what part of the instructions are
>> cached and what are not is beyond my ability to identify, let alone
>> code in...
>
>   I did a lot of searching but never found a
>   good answer. IF you can do stuff entirely
>   within CPU cache then it WILL be faster.
>   Alas not MUCH stuff will be adaptable to
>   that strategy - esp with today's bloatware.
>
RK is probably the best person to understand that, but in fact a modern
compiler will optimise for a specific processor architecture normally.
It is quite instructive to see how 'real world' programs speed up on a
chipset that simply has more cache.

>   We MAY be talking maker/sub-brand specifics ...
>   intel i3/i5/i7/i9 may all be different. Different
>   gens different yet. ARMs too.
>
Of course. And indeed many architectures are optimised for e.g. C programs.
Imagine if you chipset detects a 'ca;; subroutine' code nugget and then
proceeds to cache the new stack pointer's stack before doing anything.
All your 'local' variables are now in cache.

>   Seems that CPUs and MMUs can do certain register
>   ops faster/easier than others - fewer calx and
>   switching settings. Therein my quest. If you want
>   some code to run AS FAST AS POSSIBLE it's worth
>   thinking about.
And compilers do.
And chipsets do,.

So we don't have to. I used to do *86 assembler, but what todays C
compilers spit out is better than any hand crafted assembler is.

My mathematical friend only uses assembler to access some weird features
of a specific intel architecture to do with vector arithmetic. He writes
C library functions in assembler to access them.

Because the compilers don't acknowledge their existence - yet.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 10/01/2025 07:58, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 2:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> I don't think so. About the only thing that is proximity sensitive
>>> is cacheing. That is you want to try and ensure that you are
>>> operating out of cache, but the algorithms for what part of the
>>> instructions are cached and what are not is beyond my ability to
>>> identify, let alone code in...

The easy win is alignment, which allows more efficient use of memory
resources. e.g. if a function is 50 bytes long and your cache line size
is 64 bytes, you can ensure your function fits into a single cache line
by aligning its start address to a multiple of 64. It doesn’t
necessarily make that particular function faster, but it leaves more
room in the cache for everything else - so more cache hits in the
program as a whole. The same idea applies at other levels of the memory
hierarchy, e.g. the system page size (usually, but not always,
4Kbyte). Compilers and linkers already exploit all this quite
effectively.

The harder strategy is to put group data (or code) according to how it’s
used. If a function is going to operate on several different values then
having them adjacent in memory maximises the chances they’ll be read (or
cached) in a single operation. Main memory access can be very slow
(hundreds of times the latency of individual instructions) so getting
this right can have substantial benefits. Easy enough for a little
struct but more challenging for a complex data structure.

> So we don't have to. I used to do *86 assembler, but what todays C
> compilers spit out is better than any hand crafted assembler is.
>
> My mathematical friend only uses assembler to access some weird
> features of a specific intel architecture to do with vector
> arithmetic. He writes C library functions in assembler to access them.
>
> Because the compilers don't acknowledge their existence - yet.

I’ve had good results using GCC’s native support for vector operations,
though better on x86 than Arm so far, but my needs aren’t complex.

The context where I’ve had to use a lot of assembler is achieving
constant-time operation. Compilers love conditional branches...
(Actually vector instructions are better for this, but not all of my
code is vectorizable.)

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/