Re: Poor performance of implied-DO loop with Intel Fortran
From: glen herrmannsfeldt (gah_at_ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: 05/05/04
- Next message: Richard Maine: "Re: APPEND Option not recognized"
- Previous message: John St. Ledger: "Re: Fortran77 & GUI"
- In reply to: Aidan: "Re: Poor performance of implied-DO loop with Intel Fortran"
- Next in thread: Steve Lionel: "Re: Poor performance of implied-DO loop with Intel Fortran"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 21:21:40 GMT
Aidan wrote:
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
(snip)
>>Could you compile this with the compiler option that shows
>>the generated assembly code, and post that? It would help
>>to see what the compiler is actually doing.
> You asked for it .. though I am not saying I need this solved -- I
> was just interested to see if this was a widespread problem that I
> should look out for. I have decided it isn't.
It is sometimes useful to know what compilers will generate for
different input.
Does anyone know what f90_allocate3 and f90_allocate1 leave on
the stack? The code isn't too hard to follow, except when
called routines change the stack pointer so that all the stack
offsets are different.
In following it so far, I haven't found that it actually allocates
1000000 elements, so I presume that I followed it wrong.
Knowing the arguments to f90_allocate3 and f90_allocate1,
and for that matter, f90_reallocate1, f90_deallocate1, and
f90_deallocate13, would be nice, too.
-- glen
- Next message: Richard Maine: "Re: APPEND Option not recognized"
- Previous message: John St. Ledger: "Re: Fortran77 & GUI"
- In reply to: Aidan: "Re: Poor performance of implied-DO loop with Intel Fortran"
- Next in thread: Steve Lionel: "Re: Poor performance of implied-DO loop with Intel Fortran"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|