Tue, 6 Apr 1993 16:25:16 GMT

Related articles |
---|

Theory on loop transformations assmann@karlsruhe.gmd.de (1993-04-01) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations jjan@cs.rug.nl (1993-04-02) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations dsehr@gomez.intel.com (1993-04-02) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations pugh@cs.umd.edu (1993-04-03) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations wei@cs.cornell.EDU (Wei Li) (1993-04-03) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations mehrotra@csrd.uiuc.edu (1993-04-04) |

Re: Theory on loop transformations wei@cs.cornell.EDU (Wei Li) (1993-04-06) |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

From: | Wei Li <wei@cs.cornell.EDU> |

Keywords: | theory, optimize |

Organization: | Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY |

References: | 93-04-006 |

Date: | Tue, 6 Apr 1993 16:25:16 GMT |

assmann@karlsruhe.gmd.de (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.

Thanks.

--

Wei Li

Department of Computer Science

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.