digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 4240] New: Array operations on short fixed-length arrays should be inlined
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (33/33) May 26 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Jul 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Jul 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Jul 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/10) Jul 09 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Jul 12 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (16/16) Jul 12 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 Summary: Array operations on short fixed-length arrays should be inlined Product: D Version: 1.020 Platform: Other OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: performance Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au If an array operation is performed on a short fixed-length array, for example: float[3] x,y; x[] += y[] * 4.0; then it should not become a function call, it should simply be turned into: x[0] += y[0] * 4.0; x[1] += y[1] * 4.0; x[2] += y[2] * 4.0; I suspect that the threshold for making the function call will be occur at length at least 9, possibly higher, since the overhead for the function call is very large (it needs to check the capabilities of the processor, for example). This will allow array operations to provide good performance in the commonly-used case of 2D, 3D and 4D vectors. For x86, when the code generator supports it, such usage should be turned directly into SSE instructions. This issue is a step towards that longer-term goal. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 26 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bearophile_hugs eml.cc A use case: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=113021 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |llucax gmail.com Blocks| |859 PDT --- I'm marking this a a blocker of bug 859 so there is a single bug to track all the inlining issues. Please do the same if you open more bugs associated to inlining, or post them directly in bug 859. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |braddr puremagic.com Blocks|859 | --- undoing false dependency -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 PDT ---undoing false dependencyCan you elaborate a little on why having bug 859 as a tracker of all missing inline oportunities is a bad thing? Thanks -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 09 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 It's worth noting that this is NOT a problem with the DMD inliner. This bug will be fixed by making the array operation generator more sophisticated. All changes will be confined to arrayop.c and will not involve the inliner in any way. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 12 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4240 Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei metalanguage.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andrei metalanguage.com 07:50:29 PDT --- I suggest (and discussed this with Walter too) to strongly move towards making arrays a library type. This is already happening for hashtables. The compiler should reduce its role to only (a) translating array syntactic sugar (e.g. literals) to calls to that library type, (b) CTFE for arrays (which would be very difficult if CTFE were using the library array type), and (c) figuring out high-level bulk operations like the one in this bug report and optimize them. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 12 2010