JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  2001

COMP-FORTRAN-90 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Bit manipulations in F90--efficiency

From:

Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:08:06 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (47 lines)

Aleksandar Donev writes:
 > > If I were doing this in Fortran 77, I would write something like
...
 > I never use F77 constructs such as COMMON, EQUIVALENCE, SEQUENCE, GOTO, etc.
 > (simply because there are better F90 alternatives), it never occured to me
 > to use EQUIVALENCE (sort of a Fortran union).

Oh.  It tends not to occur to me that people wouldn't be aware of how
to use EQUIVALENCE for this kind of thing.  I figure that people
already know about that, but are looking for possible alternatives.
This is undoubtedly a narrowness in my viewpoint; I should be more
careful about that assumption.

 > It should also be trivial for compilers to use as an idiom when
 > they see TRANSFER and then use the old equivalence
 > optimizations/translation.

I'm not a compiler writer either, and I also once used to assume
that TRANSFER was trivial and would be fast.  Some cases indeed
are trivial.  Others are not.  Consider things like

  a = transfer(b,a)

Looks simple.  But if A and B are assumed shape dummy arrays, possibly
non-contiguous, with different strides, and with different element
sizes, then this isn't nearly so trivial.  Yes, the concept is
trivial enough, but trivial efficient implementation of the general
case is not so obvious.  (A naive implementation might involve
allocating a temporary contiguous array, copying the bits from B
into that array, and then copying from that array out to A.  That's
simple enough, but not particularly efficient).

I'd say that a crucial point would be for compilers to be able to
distinguish the trivial cases from the non-trivial ones.  Let the
non-trivial ones be slow, but do the "obvious" optimizations for the
simple cases.  From my naive, non-compiler-writer viewpoint, this
seems like it should be practical - probably just needs sufficient
motivation to make it worth the compiler-writers' bother.
"Motivation" in this case probably translates roughly into customers
that complain and might even use it as a consideration affecting
competitive choices.

--
Richard Maine                |  Good judgement comes from experience;
[log in to unmask]   |  experience comes from bad judgement.
                             |        -- Mark Twain

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
February 2023
November 2022
September 2022
February 2022
January 2022
June 2021
November 2020
September 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager