yes it compiles mine too --->
analyzeFuncs.cpp
-----IPP-----
-----SSE2-----
Build log was saved at "file://c:\I\SC\vs90\seti_boinc_2k3_2.2B-Ben-Joe\client\win_build\Release32-NOGFX\BuildLog.htm"
seti_boinc - 0 error(s), 0 warning(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
heinz

changed benchmark.cpp ----->
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   for(loops = 0; loops < 25 && (end_cyc-total_run)< MAX_CYCLES; loops++)
      {
      if(pre_test == zero_out)   memset( out_buf, 0, test_size );
      if(pre_test == fill_in)      memcpy( out_buf, workBuf, test_size );
      ramming_speed();
      cycles = cycleCount();
      switch ( bench_list[idx].token )
         {
         case _FFT:
            #if defined( USE_IPP )
            if(pre_test == zero_out)
            {
               ippsFFTInv_CToC_32fc(
                  ( Ipp32fc * ) out_buf,
                  ( Ipp32fc * ) out_buf,
                  FftSpec,
                  NULL );
            }
            else
            {
               ippsFFTInv_CToC_32fc(
                  ( Ipp32fc * ) workBuf,   // This is the source data, this is not overwritten
                  ( Ipp32fc * ) out_buf,   // This is some other Buffer destination
                                    // no memcpy required
                  FftSpec,
                  NULL );
            }
            #endif //seti_britta:
            #if defined( USE_FFTWF )
            fftwf_execute_dft( da_fft_plan, (sah_complex *)&in_buf[0], (sah_complex *)&out_buf );
            #endif
            break;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it compiles well --->
benchmark.cpp
-----IPP-----
-----SSE2-----
-----ipp-----
-----sse2-----
Build log was saved at "file://c:\I\SC\vs90\seti_boinc_2k3_2.2B-Ben-Joe\client\Optimizer\Release32-NOGFX\BuildLog.htm"
Optimizer - 0 error(s), 0 warning(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
will try this an look if it works well....
see you again here
regards heinz

hmm... maybe Alex Kan or Joe has a good answer

I wracked my brain about this, and ultimately came to a similar (though more convoluted and speculative) conclusion.  It would make sense to me if an explicit out of place call could make better use of the prefetch, cache and paralellism mechanisms we have discussed in a different context.  An explicit in place call could not, (so far as I can see for now, through read write dependancies).

After considering that, another possibility presented itself:
    for the same reasons, as originally presented the memcopy followed by the out of place form call (with inplace parameters), may simply be faster than 'true out of place' way we're playing with .  If so, I suspect a 'cache doubling effect' from using same source & dest. 

The flipside is that if that effect shows verifiably then it might even  indicate the particular calls are not using streaming writes to start with... possibly bringing your hybridised codelet phased processing screaming to a new sense of urgency.

More speculation than hard data at the moment, I'll think about some small simple external tests for a while and stew on it for a couple of weeks 

Jason

Yes, as we have discovered before I must need my eyes checked  and it would make sense , if it was ever used in the zero fill context, to leave it using  the same form as might occur in a real analysis anyway.

For the sakes of information - Here is the form for out of place Inverse FFT  (as exists):
    IppStatus ippsFFTInv_CToC_32fc(
                 const Ipp32fc* pSrc,
                 Ipp32fc* pDst, const
                 IppsFFTSpec_C_32fc* pFFTSpec,
                 Ipp8u* pBuffer);

And Here is the form for in place :
    IppStatus ippsFFTInv_CToC_32fc_I(
                 Ipp32fc* pSrcDst,
                 const IppsFFTSpec_C_32fc* pFFTSpec,
                 Ipp8u* pBuffer);

I am currently learning much about what is connected to what by trying to separate out the benchmark (for exploratory purposes).  Piece by piece it connects to almost the whole codebase, Still a few external references to track down, but I may end up with a stripped down custom testbed for examining function of different algorithms, libraries & optimised functions.

The main reason for this unnecessary but educational exploration is, I may wish to try and see actual differences between the FFT libraries, different compilers and flags, without touching my main copy of the code anymore.  Also I am interested to see how close to ideal the forward and inverse transforms are when a 'Maximum Length Sequence' is applied as input, rather than zeroes or random data (I hope I'll get a constant power spectrum, with no spikes etc...We''ll See )

Jason

Cool , thanks for the links by PM.  could be quite handy for the things I intend to be looking at soon.... but LOL, where is etimer.lib file that is discussed in the intel site ? The link at the end of the etimer article is giving me some 3d transform program files INTEAD  , if I can't find it I probably should let Intel know their link is broken ....

[ LOL now they fixed it ! , maybe they read Lunatics]

'Tis truly an Epical Thread  .... But Wait there's more! ....

Using the timers I ran some big loop math array test pieces to establish the best optimisation configurations on my old p4 Northwood::

With everything else equal:
the xW sse2 setting I've been using all along = 14.15 secs (repeated runs to make sure)
the xN sse2 setting I wanted to test properly = 12.8 secs (repeated runs to make sure)

That makes xN builds nearly 10% faster on my old clunker with looping math code!

This means that:
 The good news is  I may already have found a way to acheive my 5 to 10% speed improvement goal for this machine! (without doing much at all.... Hmmm ...Better start thinking of a new goal! )
 

Bad news is that I now have to go and rebuild the seti projects with my new settings to see if it will work ... and no time this week! 


Surprise Surprise, a  QxN build is faster on my Northwood
LOL