Yeah there is definitely some redundancy here, but there were reasons I wrote these tools. There are multiple sources that provide instruction timings. Agner's

Yeah there is definitely some redundancy here, but there were reasons I wrote these tools. There are multiple sources that provide instruction timings. Agner's instruction tables are amazing, but they cover only a single microarchitecture at a time, so it's really difficult to compare multiple microarchitectures. Intel's online intrinsics guide only shows instruction latencies of few latest microarchitectures, etc... Basically before AsmGrid it was time consuming for me to verify whether the instructions I have selected would perform well on a majority of machines that I target. I wrote AsmGrid initially for myself to explore AsmDB data and to spot possible errors. Then I wrote CULT just for fun as I wanted to see whether it's possible to write such tool based on AsmJit. CULT basically iterates over AsmJit instruction database, checks whether instructions (with various signatures) can be executed, and then creates JIT code for executing them either in parallel or sequencially. It works really well and the testing can be easily done in user space. In other words, I wanted a table of instructions and their timings where I can compare several microarchitectures at the same time during development and AsmGrid provides that. The only downside is that I cannot test all microarchitectures myself and when I make changes to support more instructions a re-run is necessary.