[gambit-list] Poor compilation of do-loops
Marc Feeley
feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
Sun Oct 18 08:38:01 EDT 2009
On 2009-10-17, at 7:45 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> If matrix-ref is inlined into the calculation
>
> (fl+ a
> (fl* (matrix-ref m1 i k)
> (matrix-ref m2 k j))))))))))))))
>
> then there is even greater speedup, partly because no flonums need
> to be
> boxed as return values of matrix-ref. The compiler inlines some uses,
> but I tried to inline all uses with inlining-limit, but failed (bug
> 117,
> I think), but after writing matrix-ref and matrix-set! as macros, I
> get
> the following runtimes (on a different machine than before).
>
> Original code (but compiled using gsc -exe, so twice as fast as
> original
> report, "with all possible optimizations turned on"):
> 1344 ms cpu time (1340 user, 4 system)
> Using declarations, fixnum- and flonum-specific operations, and
> f64vectors:
> 784 ms cpu time (776 user, 8 system)
> Using named let:
> 336 ms cpu time (328 user, 8 system)
> Inlining all (not just some) instances of matrix-ref and matrix-set!:
> 124 ms cpu time (120 user, 4 system)
>
> I'm planning to use Gambit again in my numerical PDE class next
> semester, so I'd like to win these benchmark games ;-).
>
> Brad
Adding the optimization you propose is certainly something interesting
to explore. However, it will not be done soon because the
optimization depends on a nontrivial control flow analysis (to
determine all the places in the code where the continuation of the do-
loop may be invoked). Jeremie Lasalle-Ratelle is currently
implementing a 0-CFA and I believe his algorithm can be extended to
perform the required analysis.
So to be safe you should plan teaching your students to avoid "do" by
using named-let.
Marc
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list