This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/31249] New: pseudo-optimzation with sincos/cexpi
- From: "dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 17 Mar 2007 21:11:36 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/31249] New: pseudo-optimzation with sincos/cexpi
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
With gfortran and g++ the computation of cos(x) and sin(x) is "optimized" by
taking
the real and imaginary parts of cexpi(x) (at least it is what I understand).
This is working
if and only if the computation of cexpi(x) is faster than the sum of the
separate computations
of cos(x) and sin(x).
Now consider the following code:
integer, parameter :: n=1000000
integer :: i
real(8) :: pi, ss, sc, t, dt
pi = acos(-1.0d0)
dt=pi/n
sc=0
ss=0
t=0
do i= 1, 100*n
sc = sc + cos(t-dt)
ss = ss + sin(t)
t = t+dt
end do
print *, sc, ss
end
the result is (G5 1.8Ghz, OSX 10.3.9):
[karma] bug/timing% gfc -O3 sincos.f90
[karma] bug/timing% time a.out
-6.324121638644320E-002 -2.934958087315009E-003
13.020u 0.050s 0:13.59 96.1% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
It is easy to see that I have fooled the optimizer with the line
sc = sc + cos(t-dt)
If I replace it by:
sc = sc + cos(t)
the result is now (over a 50% increase of the CPU time):
[karma] bug/timing% gfc -O3 sincos_o.f90
[karma] bug/timing% time a.out
-6.324121573032526E-002 -2.934958087315009E-003
21.740u 0.080s 0:22.18 98.3% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
to be compared with the result of the code:
integer, parameter :: n=1000000
integer :: i
real(8) :: pi, ss, sc, t, dt
complex(8) :: z, dz
pi = acos(-1.0d0)
dt=pi/n
dz=cmplx(0.0d0,dt,8)
sc=0
ss=0
z=0
do i= 1, 100*n
sc = sc + real(exp(z))
ss = ss + aimag(exp(z))
z = z+dz
end do
print *, sc, ss
end
is
[karma] bug/timing% gfc -O3 cexp.f90
[karma] bug/timing% time a.out
-6.324121573032526E-002 -2.934958087315009E-003
20.850u 0.110s 0:21.45 97.7% 0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
Following the comments in PR #30969, 30980, and 31161, I have understood that
on OSX cexpi "fallback" to cexp in perfect agreement with the above timings.
So it would probably nice to disable the sincos "optimisation" on platforms
that
do not support fast cexpi such as OSX (as presently configured).
Note that on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-09/msg00454.html
I have reported (in vain) a timing regression for the fatigue.f90 polyhedron
test case.
Is this related to this pseudo-optimization or to another change?
--
Summary: pseudo-optimzation with sincos/cexpi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
GCC target triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249