public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle@charter.net>
To: Nicolas Koenig <koenigni@student.ethz.ch>,
	GCC-Fortran-ML <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
	GCC-Patches-ML <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR35339 Optimize implied do loops in io statements
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:09:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <910df381-5f26-a05e-6cae-efbd26c1c880@charter.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e1aa4740-5270-5c7f-b732-291e8e0d0243@student.ethz.ch>

On 05/27/2017 12:49 PM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> attached is a patch to simplify implied do loops in io statements by replacing 
> them with their respective array slices. For example "WRITE (*,*) (a(i), 
> i=1,4,2)" becomes "WRITE (*,*) a(1:4:2)".
> 
> Ok for trunk?
> 

Thanks for patch. Could you do some timing performance tests with and without 
the patch on large arrays and see if we gain anything?

Also, we should expand the test case to include implied do loops in read 
statements. You could probably just rewind the file, copy down the WRITEs and 
change them to READs or similar and check results.

While doing some checks myself I noticed some odd behavior and found PR53029. I 
posted a patch, but what caught my attention was the implied do version was 
faster than the array version. (about .89 sec vs 6 sec)

So with my patch there I am now getting (.89 sec vs .007 sec)

This prompted me to have you check some performance cases.

Thanks for additional feedback,

Jerry


  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-28 22:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-27 21:47 Nicolas Koenig
2017-05-28 22:09 ` Jerry DeLisle [this message]
2017-05-29 15:49 Dominique d'Humières
2017-05-29 16:08 ` Nicolas Koenig
2017-05-29 16:34   ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-05-31  6:49   ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2017-05-31 15:49     ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-05-31 16:04       ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-05-31 19:11         ` Nicolas Koenig
2017-05-31 23:34           ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2017-06-01  9:31           ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-06-01 14:19             ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-06-01 14:37               ` Dominique d'Humières
2017-06-03 13:48                 ` Nicolas Koenig
2017-06-03 16:25                   ` Jerry DeLisle
2017-06-03 18:12                     ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2017-06-05 20:39                     ` Nicolas Koenig
2017-06-06 11:05                       ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2017-06-07 15:13                         ` Renlin Li

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=910df381-5f26-a05e-6cae-efbd26c1c880@charter.net \
    --to=jvdelisle@charter.net \
    --cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=koenigni@student.ethz.ch \
    /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).