https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Sep 18 20:18:09 2018
New Revision: 264412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264412=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-18 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/29550
* gfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Sep 18 19:59:46 2018
New Revision: 264411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264411=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-09-18 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/29550
* gfortran.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44600|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 44600
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44600=edit
Patch which has a problem
The attached patch shows how something could be done, but it
has one problem: The handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> I think I will defer this until gcc-9.
It's gcc-9's stage 1 now, so if this is being deferred until now, now's the
time...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
I think I will defer this until gcc-9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
--- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 18:53 ---
Sounds like something for front end optimization.
Should we maybe generate the BLAS calls directly, instead of jumping
through the library functions?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #4 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-04 14:18 ---
Can't you use the same trick that the frontend already uses to detect the
matmul(transpose(a),b) thing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-04 18:21
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can't you use the same trick that the frontend already uses to detect the
matmul(transpose(a),b) thing?
The front-end doesn't detect the case you quote. It's only that transposition
is
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-23 21:56
---
(In reply to comment #2)
We could detect in iresolve.c (gfc_resolve_matmul) that one (or both) of the
arguments to MATMUL is a call to CONJ, and then rewrite the code to be
MATMUL(A,B,2) instead of
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-22 23:14
---
I've been thinking a bit about this. It's a common case, and it would probably
be worth optimizing it.
We could detect in iresolve.c (gfc_resolve_matmul) that one (or both) of the
arguments to MATMUL is a call
16 matches
Mail list logo
