public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/29549] matmul slow for complex matrices
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:50:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080216185009.1416.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29549-1719@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-16 18:50 -------
Thomas is right: -fcx-limited-range sets flag_complex_method to 0, but already
with flag_complex_method == 1 we have some rather good figures. Here are the
execution times of 300x300 matmul on my MacBook Pro (i386-apple-darwin8.11.1):

  - a home-made triple do loop in Fortran (Janne's comment #2) is 0.1876 sec
  - unpatched matmul is 0.5499 sec
  - matmul compiled with flag_complex_method == 1 is 0.1448 sec

The following patch is what I used to benchmark: it creates a
-fcx-fortran-rules (of course, we do know that Fortran actually rules, but
hiding it in an option name is a clever way for people to slowly start
realizing it) option that sets flag_complex_method to 1, and uses it to compile
libgfortran's matmul routines.


Index: gcc/toplev.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/toplev.c        (revision 132353)
+++ gcc/toplev.c        (working copy)
@@ -2001,6 +2001,10 @@
   if (flag_cx_limited_range)
     flag_complex_method = 0;

+  /* With -fcx-fortran-rules, we do something in-between cheap and C99.  */
+  if (flag_cx_fortran_rules)
+    flag_complex_method = 1;
+
   /* Targets must be able to place spill slots at lower addresses.  If the
      target already uses a soft frame pointer, the transition is trivial.  */
   if (!FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD && flag_stack_protect)
Index: gcc/common.opt
===================================================================
--- gcc/common.opt      (revision 132353)
+++ gcc/common.opt      (working copy)
@@ -390,6 +390,10 @@
 Common Report Var(flag_cx_limited_range) Optimization
 Omit range reduction step when performing complex division

+fcx-fortran-rules
+Common Report Var(flag_cx_fortran_rules) Optimization
+Complex multiplication and division follow Fortran rules
+
 fdata-sections
 Common Report Var(flag_data_sections) Optimization
 Place data items into their own section
Index: libgfortran/Makefile.am
===================================================================
--- libgfortran/Makefile.am     (revision 132353)
+++ libgfortran/Makefile.am     (working copy)
@@ -636,7 +636,7 @@
 install-pdf:

 # Turn on vectorization and loop unrolling for matmul.
-$(patsubst %.c,%.lo,$(notdir $(i_matmul_c))): AM_CFLAGS += -ftree-vectorize
-fs
+$(patsubst %.c,%.lo,$(notdir $(i_matmul_c))): AM_CFLAGS += -ftree-vectorize
-fs
 # Logical matmul doesn't vectorize.
 $(patsubst %.c,%.lo,$(notdir $(i_matmull_c))): AM_CFLAGS += -funroll-loops



-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29549


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-02-16 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-22 15:58 [Bug fortran/29549] New: " tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de
2006-11-04 14:15 ` [Bug fortran/29549] " jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-04 20:34 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-04 21:24 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-04 22:17 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-10 19:20 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-10 22:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-16 18:50 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-02-16 19:01 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-16 21:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-16 22:33 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-19 19:34 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-25 19:22 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-25 19:28 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-26 21:15 ` jb at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080216185009.1416.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).