|Theory on loop transformations email@example.com (1993-04-01)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-04-02)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations email@example.com (1993-04-02)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-04-03)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations email@example.com.EDU (Wei Li) (1993-04-03)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-04-04)|
|Re: Theory on loop transformations email@example.com.EDU (Wei Li) (1993-04-06)|
|From:||Wei Li <firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU>|
|Organization:||Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY|
|Date:||Tue, 6 Apr 1993 16:25:16 GMT|
email@example.com (Uwe Assmann) writes:
|> I remember that ... Whenever a transformation is performed this amounts to
|> a matrix operation over the loop.
I find the matrix approach easy to use, and have successfully used it for
improving data locality on parallel machines with memory hierarchies such
as the BBN Butterfly and KSR1. All you need to do is to construct one
matrix that represents the transformation.
My question to folks who have implemented loop transformations:
if you have done it in the traditional way, i.e. a sequence of loop
transformations as opposed to the matrix approach, what is your experience
about coming up with the right sequence of transformations to apply?
We can start with a small set of transformations such as loop interchange,
loop skewing, loop distribution/jamming etc.
Department of Computer Science
Ithaca, NY 14853
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.