[Bug fortran/40958] module files too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug fortran/40958] module files too large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug middle-end/51285] [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-24 19:25:06 UTC --- Simplified testcase showing Tobias patch is unrelated. Is this still triggered by the same range ? SUBROUTINE smm_dnn_4_10_10_1_1_2_1(A,B

[Bug tree-optimization/51179] poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 --- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-23 08:34:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) (if nobody beats me, I'll try to reduce the code and open a new pr). If reproduced the ICE with 4.7, and started

[Bug middle-end/51285] New: [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285 Bug #: 51285 Summary: [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0

[Bug tree-optimization/51179] poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 --- Comment #9 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-23 17:19:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #6) (if nobody beats me, I'll try to reduce the code and open a new pr). If reproduced

[Bug middle-end/51285] [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285 Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug tree-optimization/51179] poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 --- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-23 20:11:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) What about current 4.7 SVN? The fastest 4x10 . 10x10 multiply as found with tiny_find.f90 yields somewhat better

[Bug tree-optimization/51179] poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-22 18:34:03 UTC --- Created attachment 25887 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25887 general code the more general code used to find the most

[Bug tree-optimization/51179] poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-22 18:34:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) is IMHO just a matter whether graphite can -floop-interchange this or not. If you swap manually the l and j

[Bug target/51179] New: poor vectorization on interlagos.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51179 Bug #: 51179 Summary: poor vectorization on interlagos. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-15 12:19:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) I have a cunning plan. It is doable to come within a factor of 2 of highly efficient implementations using a cache

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2011-11-15 12:31:10 UTC --- Created attachment 25826 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25826 comparison in performance for small matrix multiplies

<    3   4   5   6   7   8