Re: Loop fusion.

["Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Toon Moene <toon@moene.org> wrote:
> A few days ago there was a rant on the Fortran Standardization Committee's
> e-mail list about Fortran's "whole array arithmetic" being unoptimizable.
>
> An example picked at random from our weather forecasting code:
>
>     ZQICE(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG) = PGFL(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG,YI%MP)
>     ZQLI(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG) = PGFL(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG,YL%MP)
>     ZQRAIN(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG) = PGFL(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG,YR%MP)
>     ZQSNOW(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG) = PGFL(1:NPROMA,1:NFLEVG,YS%MP)
>
> The reaction from one of the members of the committee (about "their"
> compiler):
>
> 'And multiple consecutive array statements with the same shape are “fused”
> exactly so that the compiler can generate good cache use. This sort of
> optimization is pretty low hanging fruit.'
>
> As far as I can see loop fusion as a stand-alone optimization is not
> supported as yet, although some mention is made in the context of graphite.
>
> Is this something that should be pursued ?
Hi,
I don't know the current status of fusion in graphite.  As for
traditional fusion transformation, I think it's not very difficult to
be implemented along with existing distribution, actually, quite lot
of code should be shared.  What we do need are something like: more
motivation cases, good/conservative cost model.

Thanks,
bin
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
> At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
> Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news