[Bug fortran/53957] Polyhedron 11 benchmark: MP_PROP_DESIGN twice as long as other compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957 Anthony Falzone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prop_design at yahoo dot com --- Comment #12 from Anthony Falzone --- Hi Guys, I'm the developer of PROP_DESIGN. I originally posted on the Google GCC Graphite Group. Thanks Tobias for creating this bug and realizing the root issue. I originally thought auto-parallelization would be of benefit. However, I recently starting experimenting with the Intel Fortran compiler and have found some things that may help you out. I have found Intel Fortran IPO, auto-vectorization, and/or auto-parallelization are of no benefit to PROP_DESIGN. I also found, as Tobias mentioned here, that gfortran creates significantly slower executable files than Intel Fortran. I have narrowed it down to just the basic optimizations. It does not have to do with anything else. If you compare gfortran -03 optimizations versus Intel Fortran /O3 optimizations, you see a big difference. One case I ran shows about 38.65% faster executable files, if you use Intel Fortran with /O3 optimizations compared to gfortran with -O3 optimizations. I have a measle AMD C-60 processor and use Windows 7 64-bit. I have tried many other gfortran for Windows compilers in the past, but I'm currently using the latest version of TDM-GCC. I have also tried Linux but am not currently using it. I have not tried Intel Fortran on Linux. I am not much of a programmer, so I can't say why gfortran -O3 is making slower executable files than Intel Fortran /O3. Perhaps you guys would know. I thought this information might help you out. If I can be of any help to you, let me know. My website has the latest version of PROP_DESIGN. Polyhedron refuses to update the version I sent them years ago. It would probably be better if you used the latest version for testing your software. Sincerely, Anthony Falzone http://propdesign.weebly.com/
[Bug fortran/53957] Polyhedron 11 benchmark: MP_PROP_DESIGN twice as long as other compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957 --- Comment #13 from Anthony Falzone --- My previous post needs a correction. Comparing gfortran O3 to Intel Fortran O3 I see a 60% speed improvement in favor of the Intel Fortran compiler. There is a 40% improvement over past releases of PROP_DESIGN, which used gfortran Ofast. There is not much difference between Intel Fortran O3 and Ofast, so I am using O3 to ensure accurate calculations.
[Bug fortran/53957] Polyhedron 11 benchmark: MP_PROP_DESIGN twice as long as other compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957 --- Comment #15 from Anthony Falzone --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #14) > Anthony, could you provide a reduced test showing the problem? Hi Dominique, About the most reduced I can think of is PROP_DESIGN_ANALYSIS. It contains the core calculations that are required to determine aircraft propeller performance. PROP_DESIGN_ANALYSIS_BENCHMARK just adds some looping options that in my mind could run in parallel. However, I don't know anything about parallel programming and when I tried some Fortran compilers with auto-parallelization non of them can pick up on the loops that too me seem obviously parallel. So what I think and what is currently feasible with auto-parallelization are not the same. In any event, I have noticed that just using O3 optimizations there is a substantial difference between Intel Fortran and gfortran. So I am just confirming what Tobias is saying here in this bug report. If PROP_DESIGN_ANALYSIS_BENCHMARK is too complex of a test case for you the only thing I can think to do is take PROP_DESIGN_ANALYSIS and strip out most of the end parts where various outputs are created. So the program would just take the inputs run the minimum calculations with the least looping possible and output pretty much nothing. It wouldn't be hard for me to do something like that if it would be of any benefit to you, I'm not sure. Also, if there is anything programming wise that you would like changed for some reason as far as Fortran syntax, I can try that too. My knowledge of Fortran is fairly basic. I tried to stick strictly to Fortran 77, since that is what I was trained in and have a lot of experience with. I don't know any other programming languages or even any other versions of Fortran such as 90/95 etc... Anthony
