Re: [gfortran, testsuite, ping] Run tests with -fbounds-check, was: Re: RFA: matmul/transpose optimisation

[Janne Blomqvist <jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi>]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Tobias.Schlueter@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE wrote:
> > Patch to the testsuite below.  Tested with a 'make check-fortran'
> > and visual inspection of the testsuite log.  This removes the run
> > with -funroll-all-loops, as this is a synonym for -funroll-loops
> > according to the documentation.  I also

I'm not so sure of that, the docs say:

-funroll-loops
    Unroll loops whose number of iterations can be determined at
compile time or upon entry to the loop. -funroll-loops implies both
-fstrength-reduce and -frerun-cse-after-loop. This option makes code
larger, and may or may not make it run faster.

-funroll-all-loops
    Unroll all loops, even if their number of iterations is uncertain
when the loop is entered. This usually makes programs run more
slowly. -funroll-all-loops implies the same options as -funroll-loops,

It clearly seems that -funroll-all-loops is different. I think the
statement that it implies the same options as -funroll-loops refers to
the -fstrength-reduce and -frerun-cse-after-loop, not that the entire
option is equivalent.

That being said, perhaps we should test with -funroll-all-loops
instead of -funroll-loops, since it seems that it applies to all
situations where the normal unroller is used and then some.

-- 
Janne Blomqvist

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature