Re: Implement stack arrays even for unknown sizes

[Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:

> I have forgotten to mentionned that I have a variant of fatigue
> in which I have done the inlining manually along with few other
> optimizations and the timing for it is
> 
> [macbook] lin/test% gfc -Ofast fatigue_v8.f90
> [macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
> 2.793u 0.002s 0:02.79 100.0%	0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w
> [macbook] lin/test% gfc -Ofast -fwhole-program fatigue_v8.f90
> [macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
> 2.680u 0.003s 0:02.68 100.0%	0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
> [macbook] lin/test% gfc -Ofast -fwhole-program -flto fatigue_v8.f90
> [macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
> 2.671u 0.002s 0:02.67 100.0%	0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
> [macbook] lin/test% gfc -Ofast -fwhole-program -fstack-arrays fatigue_v8.f90
> [macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
> 2.680u 0.003s 0:02.68 100.0%	0+0k 0+2io 0pf+0w
> [macbook] lin/test% gfc -Ofast -fwhole-program -flto -fstack-arrays fatigue_v8.f90
> [macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
> 2.677u 0.003s 0:02.68 99.6%	0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> 
> So the timing of the original code with 
> -Ofast -finline-limit=600 -fwhole-program -flto -fstack-arrays
> is quite close to this lower bound.
> 
> I have also looked at the failure for gfortran.dg/elemental_dependency_1.f90
> and it seems due to a spurious integer(kind=4) A.37[4]; (and friends) in

Yes, this is due to the DECL_EXPR statement which is rendered by the 
dumper just the same as a normal decl.  The testcase looks for exactly one 
such decl, but with -fstack-arrays there are exactly two for each such 
array.

>     integer(kind=4) A.37[4];

So, this is the normal decl.

>     atmp.36.dim[0].ubound = 3;
>         integer(kind=4) A.37[4];

And this is the DECL_EXPR statement, which then actually is transformed 
into the stack_save/alloca/stack_restore sequence.


Ciao,
Michael.