|
|
| Bugzilla Link |
512 |
| Created on |
Jun 19, 2009 16:38 |
| Version |
1.00beta |
| OS |
Linux |
| Architecture |
PC |
Extended Description
This is a care of the APEX apex/testlcv/testlcv.sac versus the
apex/testlcvAKD/testlcvAKD.sac benchmarks. Here is the inner loop code
for both of them; the only difference is whether n is statically known:
inline double testlcvXID(int n)
{
r_0=tod(( false));
j_0=( 9);
A_40=iota( n);
A_CTR41_= 0;
A_CTR41z_ = (shape(A_40)[[0]])-1;
r_2=tod(r_0);
j_2=tod(j_0);
for(; A_CTR41_ <= A_CTR41z_; A_CTR41_++){
i_0 = A_40[[A_CTR41_]];
A_44=r_2, + i_0;
r_2=( A_44);
A_46=r_2 + 1.0;
j_2=( A_46);
}
A_49=r_2 + j_2;
r_3=( A_49);
return(r_3);
}
In the AKD version, we find this function:
* Loop function:
* _MAIN::_dup_659__testlcvXID__Loop_0(...)
****************************************************************************/
#3194: in [ double, double] le < 3203> ge < 3205>, #3195: in [ double, double] le < 3204> ge < 3206> _MAIN::_dup_659__testlcvXID__Loop_0( #3189: in [ int[1], int[1]] le <> ge <> _isaa_2231_A_40 { dim: 1, shape: [ 1 ] } , #3190: in [ int[.], int[.]] le <> ge <> A_40 { dim: 1, shape: _isaa_2231_A_40 } , #3191: in [ int, int] le <> ge <> A_CTR41_ { dim: 0, shape: [:int] } , #3192: in [ int, int] le <> ge <> A_CTR41z_ { dim: 0, shape: [:int] } , #3193: in [ double, double] le <> ge <> r_2 { dim: 0, shape: [:int] } )
...
_cf_2498_A_40 = _idx_shape_sel_( 0, A_40);
_cf_2499 = [ _cf_2498_A_40 ];
if (_pinl_2014__flat_41)
{
_lirmov_711_A_46, r_2__SSA0_2 = _MAIN::_dup_659__testlcvXID__Loop_0( _cf_2499, A_40, _pinl_2013__flat_69, A_CTR41z_, _pinl_2006___flat_53);
The only notable differences in the two codes is the _cf_2499 set,
the _cf_2498_A_40 set, and the fact that _cf_2499 is passed into each
call, even though it is never explicitly referenced.
I am guessing that the SAA code is generating the extra parameter, but it would be nice if we could get rid of it in cases like this.
