Hi Greg -- > 2. Is it possible to provide feedback about optimizations that > can't be done? The idea of using (sub)domains to provably > escape bounds checking for arrays is powerful, for example, > and we would like to see the array accesses where this can't > be shown.
Though subdomains (and index types) were introduced in large part to support compile-time elimination of bounds checks, in practice this analysis and optimization has never been implemented. Today, bounds checks are always on by default (and done in a reasonably bulletproof but very unoptimized way) unless the --no-bounds-checks flag is thrown (either directly, or through the --no-checks or --fast meta-flags). Once such an optimization is implemented, I agree that we'd want the compiler to produce reports indicating places where bounds checks have or have not been eliminated (along with other performance optimization reports). I believe that some Chapel compiler optmizations have reports today, but most of these are oriented more at the developer than the end-user, unfortunately. I'm hoping that others on the team might call out instances of such reports that they're familiar with. -Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Chapel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
