Hi Steve,
it is assumed
+ expensive, and that loops which access later indices (which access memory
+ in bigger strides) should be moved to the first loops.
Looks good to me with the typo fix.
Committed as r254430. Thanks for the review (and for catching the
typo; my fingers appear to have a life of their own recently :-)
I have also looked at doing loop interchange for DO loops. The
syntax part is quite straightforward, but the main problem is
knowing when _not_ to interchange, so I'll leave that
for the time being.
Regards
Thomas
