From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7767a311e01e1cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s22.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org>
Organization: jrcarter at acm dot org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT compiler switches and optimization
References: <1161341264.471057.252750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <9Qb_g.111857$aJ.65708@attbi_s21> <434o04-7g7.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <4539ce34$1_2@news.bluewin.ch> <nrup04-5hj.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <453A532F.2070709@obry.net> <9kfq04-sgm.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <sj3r04-rlv.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com> <OeF_g.1031657$084.91539@attbi_s22>
 <453b649e_4@news.bluewin.ch>
In-Reply-To: <453b649e_4@news.bluewin.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4uQ_g.1032209$084.294126@attbi_s22>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s22 1161548800 12.201.97.213 (Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:26:40 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:26:40 GMT
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:26:41 GMT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7142
Date: 2006-10-22T20:26:41+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Gautier wrote:
> 
> The Sum variable was *removed* by someone at some point of the 
> discussion in order to challenge a bit more the Ada compiler's optimizer.
> If you replace a good algorithm by a bad one, don't be surprised that 
> the program is slow. At some point of bad coding the best code optimizer 
> won't be able to help you.

I did that in my 1st version. I wanted to see if the optimizer would 
result in equivalent code. No such luck.

> Eventually the optimizer will transform this:
>          for R in A'range (2) loop
>             C (I, J) := C (I, J) + A (I, R) * B (R, J);
>          end loop;
> into something like:
>          Sum:= C (I, J); -- hopefully a Sum is mapped to a register
>          for R in A'range (2) loop
>             Sum := Sum + A (I, R) * B (R, J);
>          end loop;
>          C (I, J):= Sum;
> but in that case it probably won't be able to guess that the C(I,J) was 
> zeroed before and replace the first line by:
>          Sum:= 0.0;

Thanks for the discussion.

The initialization of C is static, so a good optimizer could. They're 
hard to find, though.

> sparing the reading of C(I,J) (must cost much time...).
> If you are luckier, the optimizer will do
>          Sum:= 0.0;
>          for R in A'range (2) loop
>             Sum := Sum + A (I, R) * B (R, J);
>          end loop;
>          C (I, J):= C (I, J) + Sum;
> But still, it won't spare the time lost to fill the C matrix with zeros.

I didn't include that in the timing.

> If you want to do a benchmark with Fortran, it's really not a good idea 
> to begin with "pessimizing" the Ada code.

I'm more interested in seeing what makes a difference in the Ada. In 
this case, the high-level features that let you write less code.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
11