Hi Jason,
Merci for compiling my codepieces and make asm files with Intel-Compiler. After a first look at asm-code, AKFCOMP and FPUCOMP performs well. 

found why my asm output not worked in ORCAS, in Configuration was Release, but must have Debug. 

heinz

Will have a look at compiling this with 'USE_AKFCOMP" defined soon , and check if I need anything else.
[was done & pm'd]

Jason

The auto- vectorizer runs 
-----------------------------------
------ Build started: Project: Optimizer, Configuration: Release32-NOGFX Win32 ------
Compiling...
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 15.00.20404 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
cl /O2 /Ob2 /Oi /Ot /Oy /GT /I "../../../boinc/win_build" /I ".." /I "..\.." /I "..\..\..\boinc\lib" /I "../../../boinc/api" /I "../../db" /I "C:\I\SC\vs90\seti_boinc_2k3_2.2B-Ben-Joe\client\Optimizer" /I "C:\I\INTEL\IPP\5.2_beta\ia32\tools\staticlib" /I "C:\I\INTEL\IPP\5.2_beta\ia32\include" /D "USE_AKFSIMD" /D "USE_IPP" /D "USE_SSE2" /D "WIN32" /D "_WIN32" /D "_WINDOWS" /D "_CONSOLE" /D "_DEBUG" /D "_LIB" /D "_MT" /D "CLIENT" /D "NBOINC_APP_GRAPHICS" /D "_UNICODE" /D "UNICODE" /D "_VC80_UPGRADE=0x0710" /D "_MBCS" /GF /FD /EHsc /MTd /Zp16 /arch:SSE2 /fp:fast /FAs /Fa"Release32-NOGFX\\" /Fo"Release32-NOGFX\\" /Fd"Release32-NOGFX\vc90.pdb" /W3 /c /Wp64 /Zi /Gd /TP /FI "win-config.h" ".\AKfoldSSE.cpp"
AKfoldSSE.cpp
-----IPP-----
-----SSE2/em-----
-----AKFSIMD-----
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)
========== Build: 1 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========

Hi Heinz,
  Did you manage to determine any performance differences between our 'auto vectoriser friendly' folding routine (when compiled under ICC, with the pragma hints / dependency overrides) and hand vectorised code?  If you haven't had a chance I'll be able to take another look in 2 weeks (holidays  )

Jason

As I´m going through the code, fraction_done get my attention.
Always before it is called we found (sometimes not directly before) following statement --->
progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );

1. in function do_transpose
                    progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );
                    #ifdef BOINC_APP_GRAPHICS
                        if ( !nographics() )
                            {
                            if ( gbp ) gbp->rarray.add_source_row( (float *)WorkData );
                            sah_graphics->local_progress = ( (( float ) ifft + 1) / NumFfts );
                            }
                    #endif
                    remaining = 1.0 - ( double ) ( icfft + 1 ) / num_cfft;
                    fraction_done( progress, remaining );
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. in function process_data
                progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );
                #ifdef BOINC_APP_GRAPHICS
                    if ( !nographics() )
                        {
                        if ( gbp ) gbp->rarray.add_source_row( (float *)WorkData );
                        sah_graphics->local_progress = ( (( float ) ifft + 1) / NumFfts );
                        }
                #endif
                remaining = 1.0 - ( double ) ( icfft + 1 ) / num_cfft;
                fraction_done( progress, remaining );
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. in analyzePoT.cpp line 246
         progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );   // prevent display of >   100%
         fraction_done( progress, remaining );
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  in analyzePot.cpp line 387
            progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );   // prevent display of >   100%
            fraction_done( progress, remaining );
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
therefore I think if we call fraction_done( double progress, double remaining )
it is not necessary in it to calculate progress again --->progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 );
because we get same result as before. So we can comment it out.
After helping the Compiler with some additional vars we get following short hopfully effective code --->

; 75   :     prog2 = 1.0 - remaining;

   fld1
   fsub   QWORD PTR _remaining$[esp-4]

; 76   : //   progress = std::min( progress, 1.0 ); // is alredy done before call fraction_done
; 77   : //   prog = progress * ( 1.0 - pow( prog2, PROG_POWER ) ) + prog2 * pow(prog2,PROG_POWER );//original
; 78   : //   A = pow( prog2,PROG_POWER );
; 79   : //   prog = progress * ( 1.0 - A ) +  prog2 * A ;
; 80   : //   B = 1.0 - A; C = prog2 * A;
; 81   : //   prog = progress * B + C;
; 82   : //  D = progress * B;
; 83   : //   prog = D + C;
; 84   :
; 85   :    A = pow( prog2,PROG_POWER );

   fld   QWORD PTR __real@4018000000000000
   call   __CIpow

; 86   :    B = 1.0 - A; C = prog2 * A;

   fld1
   fsubrp   ST(1), ST(0)

; 87   :    D = progress * B;
; 88   :    prog = D + C;
; 89   :     boinc_fraction_done( prog );

   sub   esp, 8
   fmul   ST(0), ST(0)
   fmul   QWORD PTR _progress$[esp+4]
   fadd   ST(0), ST(0)
   fstp   QWORD PTR [esp]
   call   _boinc_fraction_done
   add   esp, 8

; 90   :     }

   ret   0
?fraction_done@@YAXNN@Z ENDP            ; fraction_done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your comments are welcome

heinz

Hi Jason,
had not have time the last days.... think we should equalize our codes first, if you are agree using the new programm structure I will upload all and if it is done PM you.
heinz

I like the idea of a stripped down minimalist version, but we should eleminate not necessary code with #ifdef directives, in connection with the use of include files for variants, as I have done it  with USE_PFLOOP etc. , because it is important to have still one sourcecode, from which we can generate all necessary programmversions for the different cpu´s.

'str_util.c' & 'str_util.h'.. do we really need to use boinc's version of this?...] is a question for Joe

surprise... we are codewizards,     who does it ?   

heinz