Re: vectorization in icc

kf@iki.fi
11 Dec 2002 22:22:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
vectorization in icc kf@iki.fi (2002-11-26)
Re: vectorization in icc skral@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Kral Stefan) (2002-12-01)
vectorization in icc aart.bik@intel.com (Bik, Aart) (2002-12-03)
Re: vectorization in icc kfredrik@saippua.cs.Helsinki.FI (Kimmo Fredriksson) (2002-12-07)
vectorization in icc aart.bik@intel.com (Bik, Aart) (2002-12-07)
Re: vectorization in icc terryg@qwest.net (Terry Greyzck) (2002-12-11)
Re: vectorization in icc kf@iki.fi (2002-12-11)
Re: vectorization in icc kf@iki.fi (2002-12-11)
Re: vectorization in icc kf@iki.fi (2002-12-11)
Re: vectorization in icc nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2002-12-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: kf@iki.fi
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Dec 2002 22:22:44 -0500
Organization: -
References: 02-12-049
Keywords: parallel
Posted-Date: 11 Dec 2002 22:22:44 EST

Thanks!


Now it runs fast!


Some performance measures (lm is of type char):


Case 1: This runs in time 1.44s:


                                #pragma ivdep
                                #pragma vector aligned
                                for( j = 0; j < 16; j++ )
                                {
                                                d[ j ] = d[ j ] + d[ j ];
                                                d[ j ] = d[ j ] | B[ j ];


                                                dm[ j ] = d[ j ] & mm[ j ];
                                }
                                lm = 0;
                                for( j = 0; j < 16; j++ ) if( !dm[ j ] ) lm++;
                                m += lm;


Case 2: If I add #pragma novector in the second loop, it runs in time 3.57s.
Case 3: If I add #pragma novector in the first loop, it runs in time 7.67s.
Case 4: If I add #pragma novector in both loops, it runs in time 3.48s.


All in all, the performance boost is nice, almost 2.5X, but what I still
don't get is why Case 3 is so slow? Especially, why it is slower than
Case 4??? Doesn't matter, however.


Thanks again,


Kimmo.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.