https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32512
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
--- Comment #7 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-09 18:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Was an experiment to see if an improvement to reshape could easily be
> implemented in the library. It fails completely, of course, because the
> source
> is freed! This does show that a
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-30 19:53 ---
Index: libgfortran/generated/reshape_r4.c
===
--- libgfortran/generated/reshape_r4.c (revision 142291)
+++ libgfortran/generated/reshape_r4.c (working c
--- Comment #5 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-13 20:16 ---
Subject: Bug 32512
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Apr 13 20:15:58 2008
New Revision: 134245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=134245
Log:
2008-04-13 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Franco
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-28 23:23 ---
Subject: Bug 32512
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Mar 28 23:22:49 2008
New Revision: 133702
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133702
Log:
2008-03-28 Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR li
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-26 11:54 ---
Just to show how much time can be saved, I compared the speed with different
compilers (on x86-64/Linux):
gfortran sunstudio12 ifort9.1/10 open64 NAGf95 g95
---
--- Comment #2 from highegg at gmail dot com 2007-06-26 10:56 ---
Just an informal note:
Apparently (using the testcase), EkoPath 3.0 has a fast RESHAPE but not
fast SPREAD, while Intel 9.1 and current g95 have neither.
--
highegg at gmail dot com changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #1 from highegg at gmail dot com 2007-06-26 06:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=13790)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13790&action=view)
speedtester of TRANSPOSE, RESHAPE and SPREAD
this testcase tests speed of constructing an array via TRANSPOSE, RESHAP
