+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 04-08-2014
I hope xoft gets why I keep going on about vectorization now.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-09-2014
I get one important message from the presentation: All CPUs are different and if you want a binary that performs well on all of them, do NOT use the advanced stuff
Instead, make it optimized enough for ALL CPUs.The problem with C++ is that regular users expect to download and run binaries, so you need to compile the code, and you have no idea what the destination machine is - whether it's a top-of-the-line haswell-based server, or some old dusty P3 someone uses to run as a server in their attic. Open-source is better in this way, since it allows you to compile for your exact machine, but then, very few people can actually do that.
RE: What we're doing - LO1ZB - 04-09-2014
(04-09-2014, 01:05 AM)xoft Wrote: I get one important message from the presentation: All CPUs are different and if you want a binary that performs well on all of them, do NOT use the advanced stuff
The problem with C++ is that regular users expect to download and run binaries, so you need to compile the code, and you have no idea what the destination machine is - whether it's a top-of-the-line haswell-based server, or some old dusty P3 someone uses to run as a server in their attic. Open-source is better in this way, since it allows you to compile for your exact machine, but then, very few people can actually do that.
I would compile it on my machine, but i have no idea how i can do it (Win7 Ulti x64)
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 04-09-2014
Well we might want to change from our current default for the 32 bit version. I doubt anyone has got an 80386 with enough RAM to run MCServer.
@xoft I don't get that message. What I get is All CPUs are different and if you want a binary that performs OK on all of them, do NOT use the advanced stuff instead, make it optimized enough for all CPUs. After all if you don't use vectors you can only use half a modern CPU's capabilities. However if you want to make maximum use of them, you should write c++ in such a way that the compiler can optimize it and there aren't any hidden constraints. And use a modern compiler that knows all the pitfalls
.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-09-2014
@L01ZB: The instructions are in the repo: https://github.com/mc-server/MCServer/blob/master/COMPILING.md and possibly in the other .md files
If you have trouble following them, give us a heads-up, we can fix it - but only if we know there's something wrong with it.
@worktycho: That's more or less what I'm saying - the CPUs are different, so there's no point in super-optimizing for a single CPU. We need to write code that compiles well onto all architectures. However, the problem is the binaries - those are already compiled with no chance of getting optimized for the specific chip they're being run on.
RE: What we're doing - bearbin - 04-09-2014
But what Tycho is saying is that even though you shouldn't optimise for the latest CPU, you should tell your compiler that the minimum supported chip is a Pentium 4 rather than an 80386... Nobody really has pentium 3s, and if they did they should compile it themselves.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 04-09-2014
And using a pentium 4 as a default we can then use SSE2 for the fpu. SSE2 for fpu is far better.
RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-09-2014
I'd like to direct your attention towards this Build presentation by Herb Sutter. The entire thing is valuable, but if you're short on time, watch at least from 23:30:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-661
To sum it up, it shows why we keep moving away from std::list towards std::vector and thus gain performance
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 04-09-2014
Only reason to use std::list is if you need to remove things in the middle without invalidating iterators. Not many other collections can do that.
RE: What we're doing - worktycho - 04-09-2014
I spent several lessons arguing with my computing teacher on exactly that point. My current syllabus teaches that the only disadvantage to linked list is O(N) traversal. And since they don't mention the idea of std::vector type things, its basically saying linked lists are the better most of the time.