https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 65819, which changed state.
Bug 65819 Summary: overzealous checking in gfc_check_dependency for
identical=true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65819
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 68009, which changed state.
Bug 68009 Summary: [7/8 Regression] prototype for gfortran_runtime_error with
inline matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68009
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 29550, which changed state.
Bug 29550 Summary: Optimize -fexternal-blas calls for conjg()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 29 06:03:23 2017
New Revision: 248553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248553&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 66094, which changed state.
Bug 66094 Summary: Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 68600, which changed state.
Bug 68600 Summary: Inlined MATMUL is too slow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon May 1 17:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* fronten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 66189, which changed state.
Bug 66189 Summary: Block loops for inline matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 69154, which changed state.
Bug 69154 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_where_2, at
fortran/trans-stmt.c:5005 on *-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69154
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Bug 37131 depends on bug 66176, which changed state.
Bug 66176 Summary: Handle conjg() in inline matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 17 13:45:07 2015
New Revision: 223268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue May 12 06:37:43 2015
New Revision: 223031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66041
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig ---
Further ideas:
- Handling of TRANSPOSEd arguments
- Temporaries for arguments which are not plain arrays
- Remove size<0 checks (the DO loops will do that on their own)
- Remove double run-time checks, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 6 20:23:48 2015
New Revision: 222864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 3 18:09:57 2015
New Revision: 222751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #24)
> I wonder if the above code is valid Fortran.
y is not associated, so not suitable for passing as ARRAY argument to LBOUND:
ARRAY
shall be an array of an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test
module tst
implicit none
contains
subroutine bar (a, b, n, m)
integer, dimension(:), allocatable, intent(inout) :: a
integer, dimension(:), pointer, intent(inout) :: b
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #22)
> Program aborted. Backtrace:
> #0 0x3FF95D8B973
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test
Thanks for the report! Before we can proceed, please send u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #22 from Andreas Schwab ---
Program aborted. Backtrace:
#0 0x3FF95D8B973
FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Apr 30 22:12:31 2015
New Revision: 222661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37131
* simplif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
First submitted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00969.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 35356
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35356&action=edit
First attempt that appears to work
Well, this seems to work so far, no regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> Hi Mikael,
>
> do you think you can do this using the scalarizer?
>
Not in its current state.
And as I don't see the scalarizer being changed soon to allow it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-08-16 22:55:22 |2014-10-2
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Ko
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig 2011-01-02
23:20:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 22883
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22883
matmul loops that vectorize
Here's how we could make the different matmul loops look like
for diffe
--- Comment #13 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2010-06-05 18:27 ---
Subject: Re: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'm working on nested scalarization loops for the sum intrinsic
> (pr43829) ;
> inlining matmul should be straightforward aft
--- Comment #12 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 09:31 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I have thought a little bit about this, and the problem is
> a bit daunting ;-) Of course, this is at least partly because
> my experience with the scalarizer is close to non-existant, but
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 08:49
---
Dear Paul,
thanks a lot for your helpful comments.
Just one thing: I currently don't see how to refer to multiple
indices for an array element.
In the code you pointed out, this is done with a single variable,
--- Comment #10 from paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com
2010-06-05 06:55 ---
Subject: Re: inline matmul for small matrix sizes
Dear Thomas,
> The preferred way would therefore be to state the rank 2 * rank 2 problem as
>
> do i=1,m
> do j=1,n
> c(i,j) = sum(a(i
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 22:31 ---
I have thought a little bit about this, and the problem is
a bit daunting ;-) Of course, this is at least partly because
my experience with the scalarizer is close to non-existant, but you
have to learn sometime.
I
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-14 09:15 ---
New timings, on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I split off the "invalidate"
subroutine to make sure the optimizers don't optimize this out:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp> gfortran -O3 matmul.f90 invalidate.f90
i...@linux-fd1f:/t
--- Comment #7 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-09 22:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=16866)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16866&action=view)
better test case
Thou shalt use IMPLICIT none, especially if you think you don't need it...
Here's a better te
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 19:58 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> For comparison with ifort ("loop was vectorized" in lines 40, 41, 43):
> matmul =2.660166 s
> subroutine without explicit interface: 0.000E+00 s
> subroutine with explic
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 16:18 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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
--- 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
valu
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-16 22:55 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|norma
40 matches
Mail list logo
