public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow
@ 2009-07-15 15:33 linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:49 ` [Bug fortran/40766] " linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (20 more replies)
0 siblings, 21 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: linuxl4 at sohu dot com @ 2009-07-15 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
program main
implicit none
integer :: i,j
integer,parameter :: N=50000000
real :: x(N)=0.0
do j=1,20
do i=1,N
x(i)=x(i)+sin(real(i))+cos(real(i))-tan(real(i))
enddo
enddo
print *, sum(x)
end program main
--
Summary: this fortran program is too slow
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: linuxl4 at sohu dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
@ 2009-07-15 15:49 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: linuxl4 at sohu dot com @ 2009-07-15 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2009-07-15 15:49 -------
My server is an atom330/gentoo
gfortran -v
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.5.0 20090715 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
gfortran 1.f90; time ./a.out
4.28173363E+09
real 120m30.599s
user 120m29.164s
sys 0m0.464s
ifort 1.f90; time ./a.out
4.3692155E+09
real 2m56.217s
user 2m55.871s
sys 0m0.352s
if I call the functions(sin,cos,tan) from intel's libimf.so, then
gfortran 1.f90 -limf
4.31716608E+09
real 6m39.177s
user 6m38.289s
sys 0m0.512s
--
linuxl4 at sohu dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|this fortran program is too |this fortran program is too
|slow |slow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:49 ` [Bug fortran/40766] " linuxl4 at sohu dot com
@ 2009-07-15 15:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-15 17:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-15 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 15:55 -------
What is the timing when adding -O3 to the command line. GCC defaults to no
optimizations turned on. This is unlike ifort which defaults to having
optimizations turned on.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:49 ` [Bug fortran/40766] " linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-15 17:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-15 18:35 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-07-15 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-07-15 17:58 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> if I call the functions(sin,cos,tan) from intel's libimf.so, then
> gfortran 1.f90 -limf
> 4.31716608E+09
>
> real 6m39.177s
> user 6m38.289s
> sys 0m0.512s
This is probably library issue.
You can try to benchmark with "-O3 -mfpmath=sse,387 -ffast-math"
(Alternatively, you can link svml vector library with "-O3 -mveclibabi=svml
-ffast-math", although IIRC, vectorized sincos is not yet supported.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-15 17:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-07-15 18:35 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 18:51 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (16 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: linuxl4 at sohu dot com @ 2009-07-15 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2009-07-15 18:35 -------
-O3 also very slow.
4.28173363E+09
real 81m50.845s
user 81m50.587s
sys 0m0.444s
can anybody confirm?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-15 18:35 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
@ 2009-07-15 18:51 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-07-15 20:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-07-15 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-07-15 18:50 -------
> can anybody confirm?
On a 2.1Ghz core2duo, i686-apple-darwin, I get:
[ibook-dhum] bug/timing% gfc -m64 -O3 -ffast-math pr40766_db.f90
[ibook-dhum] bug/timing% time a.out
4.36921651E+09
157.568u 0.454s 2:38.39 99.7% 0+0k 0+0io 27pf+0w
[ibook-dhum] bug/timing% gfc -m64 -O3 -mfpmath=sse,387 -ffast-math
pr40766_db.f90
[ibook-dhum] bug/timing% time a.out
6.78342144E+08
127.528u 0.411s 2:08.08 99.8% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
[ibook-dhum] bug/timing% time a.out
4.3692155E+09
31.441u 0.288s 0:31.79 99.7% 0+0k 0+0io 1pf+0w
So depending on the options, only a factor 4 to 5.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-15 18:51 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-07-15 20:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-15 21:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-15 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 20:27 -------
You should also add -march=native to the command line; it probably does not
help much, bit it should help a bit. I recall also the standard GLIBC misses
some optimized version for math on x86-64 while AMD provides patches for those
(applied by standard on SUSE Linux). Though, I am not sure whether this is
still an issue.
With openSUSE Factory (x86_64, glibc 2.10.1, GCC 4.5.0) I get on an AMD Athlon
64 x2 4800+ the following timings, which do not look too bad:
$ ifort -O3 -xHost aa.f90; time ./a.out/
real 1m59.997s user 1m59.651s sys 0m0.252s
$ gfortran -O3 -ffast-math -march=native aa.f90; time ./a.out
real 2m29.711s user 2m28.841s sys 0m0.236s
$ gfortran -O3 -ffast-math -mveclibabi=acml -march=native aa.f90 \
-L /opt/acml4.2.0/gfortran64_mp/lib/ -lacml_mv #(Note: current is ACML 4.3)
real 2m29.693s user 2m29.373s sys 0m0.192s
$ gfortran -O3 -ffast-math -mveclibabi=svml -march=native aa.f90 \
-L /opt/intel/Compiler/11.1/038/lib/intel64 -lsvml -limf -lintlc; \
time ./a.out
real 3m56.189s user 3m55.839s sys 0m0.200s
Thus with the GLIBC (with AMD patches) or with the AMCL, one gets only a
slowdown of 25%, which is still acceptable. Why the Intel routines are so slow
on my AMD, I do not know.
With -mveclibabi=svml sincosf and tanf are linked; for -mveclibabi=acml and no
-mvec* option, sincosf and tanf@@GLIBC_2.2.5. ifort by contrast calls:
vmlsSinCos4 vmlsTan4
Thus the question is really: Why are neither vmlsSinCos4 nor vmlsTan4 - nor for
ACML vrs4_sincosf/vrsa_sincosf (vrs*_tan* does not exist) called?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-15 20:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-15 21:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 4:37 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-15 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 21:00 -------
icc can vectorize the function, gcc cannot. Use an operating system which
has sincos available and you'll get at least that bit.
You definitely want -O3 -ffast-math. That we can't vectorize sin/cos/tan
is RMS fault.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-15 21:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-16 4:37 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-16 5:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: linuxl4 at sohu dot com @ 2009-07-16 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2009-07-16 04:37 -------
compilation is also very slow, isn't it?
can anybody confirm my results of only with or without -O3 option?
I think the difference of sse or x87 is 4 times at most.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 4:37 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
@ 2009-07-16 5:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 6:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-16 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 05:06 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> compilation is also very slow, isn't it?
>
It's due to the initialization expression.
How much memory do you have? You're most likely swapping.
Your code when compiled with 4.5.0 shows
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
2092 kargl 1 98 0 1040M 807M CPU1 0 0:07 37.98% f951
in top(1).
Changing your code to something a little more sane like
integer,parameter :: N=50000000
real :: x(N)
x = 0.0
uses no swap and compiles in less than a second.
If you reduce 50000000 to something sane like 50 and use
the -fdump-tree-original option you might get a clue to
the problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 5:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-16 6:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-16 7:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-07-16 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-07-16 06:56 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thus with the GLIBC (with AMD patches) or with the AMCL, one gets only a
> slowdown of 25%, which is still acceptable. Why the Intel routines are so slow
> on my AMD, I do not know.
See [1], section 12.1, CPU dispatching in Intel compiler, on how to hack around
this issue.
[1] http://www.agner.org/optimize/optimizing_cpp.pdf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 6:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-07-16 7:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-16 9:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-07-16 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-07-16 07:16 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thus the question is really: Why are neither vmlsSinCos4 nor vmlsTan4 - nor for
> ACML vrs4_sincosf/vrsa_sincosf (vrs*_tan* does not exist) called?
Because sincos returns _TWO_ values and the vectorizer does not yet support
this. ASAP as the middle-end infrastructure is in place, we can stick
vectorized sincos in ix86_veclib* functions. See also [1] and [2], sincos part.
Perhaps you could motivate Richi to extend the vectorizer infrastructure ;)
[1]
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/implement-the-short-vector-math-library/
[2]
http://developer.amd.com/cpu/Libraries/acml/onlinehelp/Documents/Vector.html#Vector
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 7:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-07-16 9:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 9:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-16 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 09:06 -------
Actually the middle-end presents the vectorizer with a call to a complex
function and REAL/IMAGPART exprs. I don't remember exactly which part
confuses it, but certainly the mixed complex / real types do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 9:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-16 9:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 10:06 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-16 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-16 09:43 -------
See PR 40770 for "Vectorization of complex types, vectorization of sincos
missing"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 9:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-16 10:06 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-22 11:15 ` eres at il dot ibm dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2009-07-16 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |40770
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-07-16 10:06:11
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-16 10:06 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2009-07-22 11:15 ` eres at il dot ibm dot com
2009-07-25 7:40 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: eres at il dot ibm dot com @ 2009-07-22 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from eres at il dot ibm dot com 2009-07-22 11:15 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> program main
> implicit none
> integer :: i,j
> integer,parameter :: N=50000000
> real :: x(N)=0.0
> do j=1,20
> do i=1,N
> x(i)=x(i)+sin(real(i))+cos(real(i))-tan(real(i))
> enddo
> enddo
> print *, sum(x)
> end program main
Is this exmaple taken from a specific benchmark?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-22 11:15 ` eres at il dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-07-25 7:40 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-12-05 6:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: linuxl4 at sohu dot com @ 2009-07-25 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from linuxl4 at sohu dot com 2009-07-25 07:40 -------
no , I wrote this source myself.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-25 7:40 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
@ 2009-12-05 6:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-05 19:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-05 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 06:29 -------
This is a glibc issue with software sin function. It does not use the FPU.
Just try with -m32. Changing n=50000
$ gfc -m64 untitled.f90
$ time ./a.out
-1781878.9
real 0m3.060s
user 0m3.050s
sys 0m0.003s
$ gfc -m32 untitled.f90
$ time ./a.out
-1781888.9
real 0m0.234s
user 0m0.231s
sys 0m0.004s
$
The situation is absolutely absurd. I opened a PR for this so long ago, I
don't remember the number.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-05 6:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-05 19:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 19:23 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-05 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 19:01 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> This is a glibc issue with software sin function.
AMD has some patches for this, which are seemingly only used by (open)SUSE's
glibc. Try http://developer.amd.com/CPU/LIBRARIES/LIBM/Pages/default.aspx
(The source can be found in the repository of Open64.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-05 19:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-06 19:23 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 21:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-10 10:46 ` maxim at codesourcery dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-06 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:23 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> This is a glibc issue with software sin function.
Is there anything that we can do about this?
If not, this PR should be closed.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-06 19:23 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-06 21:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-10 10:46 ` maxim at codesourcery dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-06 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:38 -------
One possibility is to see if the glibc patches for this issue can be merged
into eglibc... Maxim what do you think?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-06 21:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-10 10:46 ` maxim at codesourcery dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: maxim at codesourcery dot com @ 2010-05-10 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-10 10:46 -------
Subject: Re: this fortran program is too slow
On 5/7/10 1:38 AM, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 21:38 -------
> One possibility is to see if the glibc patches for this issue can be merged
> into eglibc... Maxim what do you think?
I'll look into this when I have a minute.
I'm hesitant to merging patches to EGLIBC that were not submitted to
either GLIBC or EGLIBC mailing lists. There are copyright assignment
issues with extracting patches from (open)SUSE's GLIBC and committing
them in to EGLIBC. Copyright assignment is not an absolutely blocking
issue, but it is one of the concerns.
The plan of action is to find out who the author of the patch is and ask
him or her to submit the patch to EGLIBC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
[not found] <bug-40766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-24 18:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-19 14:37 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-24 13:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2012-04-24 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2012-04-24 13:13:13 UTC ---
The glibc libm work has mainly been oriented at correctness rather than
performance, and postdates the 2.15 release so will be new in 2.16 (the
2.15 announcement came some time after the actual tag and branching).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
[not found] <bug-40766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-24 18:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-19 14:37 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-24 13:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: jb at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-19 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22 from Janne Blomqvist <jb at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-19 14:34:35 UTC ---
AFAIK the recently released Glibc 2.15 incorporates quite a lot of work in
libm. Whether it fixes any of these performance issues I don't know.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40766] this fortran program is too slow
[not found] <bug-40766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-07-24 18:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-19 14:37 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-24 13:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-24 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Franke <dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-24 18:49:19 UTC ---
One year down. Did anything happen here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-24 13:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-07-15 15:33 [Bug fortran/40766] New: this fortran program is too slow linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:49 ` [Bug fortran/40766] " linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 15:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-15 17:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-15 18:35 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-15 18:51 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-07-15 20:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-15 21:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 4:37 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-07-16 5:06 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 6:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-16 7:17 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-16 9:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 9:43 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-16 10:06 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-07-22 11:15 ` eres at il dot ibm dot com
2009-07-25 7:40 ` linuxl4 at sohu dot com
2009-12-05 6:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-05 19:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 19:23 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 21:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-10 10:46 ` maxim at codesourcery dot com
[not found] <bug-40766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-07-24 18:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-19 14:37 ` jb at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-24 13:14 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
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).