Brian Budge wrote:
> Hmmmm, yeah... I guess it shouldn't make an 8.5 time difference.
>
> You're right, it should be a smaller difference. The squaring is 2
> muls and an add vs 4 muls and 2 adds, so it should be less than twice
> as fast when you include the other portion.
>
> The instruction ordering might be more optimal also.
>
> 8.5 times though... weird.
>
Looks like the problem can be solved by manually inlining the
definition of "norm"...
//manually inlining "norm" results in a 5x-7x speedup on g++
for(int i=0; i<iter and
(Z.real()*Z.real() + Z.imag()*Z.imag()) <= limit_sqr; ++i)
Z = Z*Z + C;
...For some reason g++ must not have been able to inline it (or does so
after common subexpression elimination or somesuch).
Greg Buchholz
