This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fortran array indexing on 64-bit targets & snapshot 971023
- To: law at cygnus dot com, wilson at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Fortran array indexing on 64-bit targets & snapshot 971023
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 97 19:21:01 +0200
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
- References: <11138.877705479@hurl.cygnus.com>
In message <9710241223.AA02380@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> I wrote:
> It seems that Richard Henderson's `expr.c' (get_inner_reference)
> patch didn't make into snapshot 971023.
>
> Was there a compelling reason to exclude it ?
Jeff:
> Jim had some questions about it, which nobody has answered yet:
[ Complicated discussion about the special handling of zero lower
bound array references elided ]
Yes, I've looked into this and didn't understand it either.
Nevertheless, to inject some numbers into this discussion (using
Patick Queutey's CFD benchmark example on a 500 Mhz Alpha):
egcs-971023, bare (3 runs):
7.60user 0.02system 0:20.87elapsed 36%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
7.25user 0.01system 0:11.27elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
7.78user 0.02system 0:11.18elapsed 69%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
After applying Richard Henderson's `exp.c' patch (4 runs):
4.51user 0.14system 0:09.17elapsed 50%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
4.53user 0.01system 0:08.20elapsed 55%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
4.15user 0.02system 0:07.72elapsed 54%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
4.37user 0.01system 0:07.29elapsed 60%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
(with your `use' patch I get between 3.6 and 3.9 seconds).
So I hope a decision will be reached (to say the least :-)
Cheers,
Toon.