From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4773 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2008 13:20:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 4582 invoked by uid 48); 23 Aug 2008 13:18:46 -0000 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080823131846.4581.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg01758.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-23 13:18 ------- Created an attachment (id=16134) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16134&action=view) test case Actually, the test cases were a bit unfair, because the middle-end decided not to calculate the values of c that were never used. Attached is a better test case. Timings on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu: matmul = 12.840802 s subroutine without explicit interface: 0.88805580 s subroutine with explicit interface: 0.87605572 s inline with sum 2.0721283 s While inlining is still much better than matmul, a hand-rolled 3*3 subroutine is much faster overall, which I find a bit surprising. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131