3 ms·
Yes, but likewise for the classical loop optimizations that this is aiming to improve on. They clearly do work -- to a lesser extent? -- for production code, ju
by gnufx 8y ago
Yes, but likewise for the classical loop optimizations that this is aiming to improve on. They clearly do work -- to a lesser extent? -- for production code, just not the sort that many commentators give the impression of thinking is all that matters. Linear algebra does crop up all over the place.
(In contrast, I would say gcc's -floop-nest-optimize "experimental" implementation doesn't work on matmul, at least.)
- fooker 8y ago>Linear algebra does crop up all over the place True. Almost everyone who does matrix/vector operations in production code uses libraries though. That is why it is tricky to see results from these kinds of projects on production code.
- mpweiher 8y agoAnd those libraries tend to have been hand-built and/or with special-purpose tools.
- gnufx 8y agoI looked up the Polly reference concerning discussion of BLIS missing optimized implementations, and GCC and clang apparently failing on BLIS-type loops. (It mentioned examples of people not using the relevant libraries in national labs, not that I'd defend that.) It might also have been other types of kernel that don't exist for ARM or POWER, say. Surely it would be good to have an effective general-purpose tool (compiler) that could replace labourious hand-optimization or building special-purpose tools.