Re: Loop jamming!?

n8tm@aol.com (N8TM)
27 Jul 1997 23:35:43 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Loop jamming!? joelw@rsn.hp.com (Joel Williamson) (1997-06-30)
Re: Loop jamming!? sven@customized.com (Sven) (1997-07-13)
Re: Loop jamming!? n8tm@aol.com (1997-07-16)
Re: Loop jamming!? cdg@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser) (1997-07-18)
Re: Loop jamming!? schow@nortel.ca (Stanley Chow) (1997-07-21)
Re: Loop jamming!? cdg@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser) (1997-07-22)
Re: Loop jamming!? n8tm@aol.com (1997-07-27)
Re: Loop jamming!? genew@netcom.com (1997-07-28)
Re: Loop jamming!? simmons@nortel.ca (Steve Simmons) (1997-07-29)
Re: Loop jamming!? schow@nortel.ca (Stanley Chow) (1997-07-31)
Re: Loop jamming!? jan@fsnif.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Jan Vorbrueggen) (1997-07-31)
Re: Loop jamming!? cliff.click@Eng.Sun.COM (cliffc) (1997-08-07)
Re: Loop jamming!? mkent@acm.org (Mike Kent) (1997-08-07)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: n8tm@aol.com (N8TM)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Jul 1997 23:35:43 -0400
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: 97-07-108
Keywords: optimize

Evidently, there are cases on certain systems, e.g. SGI, where loops
must be split to obtain reasonable performance, due primarily to
apparent shortage of available registers. I meant the other extreme,
where a loop is held back by sequential dependencies, and another loop
can be jammed in with it, even possibly a loop with a slightly
different trip count, so that the time taken by one of the two loops
may be eliminated.


Tim
--

Post a followup to this message

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