RE: Matrix Multiplication

["Carlisle, Martin" <Martin.Carlisle@usafa.af.mil>]

The idea that matrix multiplication would always be inlined seems absurd to
me.  The simple implementation has O(n^3) running time.  Any enhancement
requires a fair amount of code, which I surely wouldn't want replicated
every time I did a matrix multiply.  The overhead of a function call, in
this case, would be so small as to be negligible.

--Martin

----------------------------------------------
Martin C. Carlisle, PhD
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
US Air Force Academy
DISCLAIMER:  This message represents the author's opinions, and not
necessarily those of the US Air Force Academy or the US Air Force. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Maine [mailto:maine@qnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 8:25 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Matrix Multiplication


"E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net> writes:

> That's even easier.  The Ada version could call the f90 intrinsic too.
> All you would need to do is link the f90 library which contains matmul.

I will not get into the language comparison or benchmarking aspects of
this thread.

I just note that "linking the f90 library that contains matmul" isn't
necessarily that straightforward.  Matmul is an intrinsic.  It is not
at all given  that there even *IS* a library that contains it; a compiler
is quite free to always do it inline.  And even if much of the work is
in a library routine, the interface to them isn't necessarily known
outside of the compiler.

Intrinsics are basically part of the compiler internals.  They *MAY* be
implemented with callable library routines, but there is no guarantee of
that.
And it certainly isn't a portable way to call them.

-- 
Richard Maine
maine@qnet.com

_______________________________________________
comp.lang.ada mailing list
comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
http://ada.eu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada