https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #20 from Domi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
Also see PR 55858.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #18 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> With -O3, I get the same timings for the test in comment 1 since gcc 4.6.4.
> Could this PR be closed as FIXED or did I miss something in the discus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.4, 4.7.3, 4.8.2, 4.9.0
Kn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig 2013-03-29
22:19:05 UTC ---
The patch from comment#12 causes memory failure of the
following code:
module zero
implicit none
contains
subroutine foo(a)
real, contiguous :: a(:,:)
a(:,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-01 16:21:21 |2013-03-29
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 15:25 ---
Well, a(5:)=0.0 doesn't satisfy copyable_array_p, so gfc_trans_zero_assign
isn't called at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 14:42 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> What's the reason why gfc_trans_zero_assign insists that len is INTEGER_CST?
> At least if it is contiguous (and not assumed size), why can't memset be used
> even for non-constant sizes?
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 17:43 ---
What's the reason why gfc_trans_zero_assign insists that len is INTEGER_CST?
At least if it is contiguous (and not assumed size), why can't memset be used
even for non-constant sizes?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 17:00 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > I cannot reproduce the factor of 10 results, however.
> Here this still is the case (so might depend on the precise architecture):
OK, I was using -fwhole-fil
--- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-06-21 15:49 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I cannot reproduce the factor of 10 results, however.
Here this still is the case (so might depend on the precise architecture):
/data03/vondele/gcc_trunk/build/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-l
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 15:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I get for the example the following values, note especially the newly added
> CONTIGUOUS result:
For the test case, see attachment 20966 at PR 44612; that PR I have filled
because GCC does
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 15:02 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Just for reference, the difference in time between the two variants is truly
> impressive. About a factor of 11 with gcc 4.4 and 8 with gcc 4.5.
I get for the example the following values,
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 21:01 ---
See also PR40598.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41137
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-01 16:21 ---
A workaround (which should really be implemented within the compiler):
subroutine s(a,n)
integer :: n
real :: a(n*n*n*n)
a = 0.0
end subroutine
This is legal Fortran, equivalent to your routine, and should be much
--- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-24 20:06 ---
I don't think this PR depends on PR40632, which just provides a F2008 mechanism
to signal an assumed shape array to be contiguous (certainly a useful feature
in its own respect). The cases discussed here are rather assum
--- Comment #3 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 08:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think PR31009 is similar.
In fact, this is almost a dup of PR31016, since also here, I'm explicitly
talking about the case of known-to-be-contiguous arrays.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-21 07:39 ---
I think PR31009 is similar.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-08-21 07:02 ---
Just for reference, the difference in time between the two variants is truly
impressive. About a factor of 11 with gcc 4.4 and 8 with gcc 4.5. Given that a
code like CP2K spents sometimes about 5-10% of its time in zeroi
21 matches
Mail list logo
