Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<51ef42e4ff170d68a4858a0d7082feab@www.novabbs.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Concertlina II: Full Circle Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:36:22 +0000 Organization: Rocksolid Light Message-ID: <51ef42e4ff170d68a4858a0d7082feab@www.novabbs.org> References: <mas07jhu9i876gsov2gh8tap17kem5n21p@4ax.com> <132536f47d1b160ad3ad0340fc479c1d@www.novabbs.org> <v4c17j5eo503i93fb7imjpom5jqs3oivtv@4ax.com> <50c85586e1aec0eef53e83cef7cb1d5d@www.novabbs.org> <4mb37jdb25571s1q1pjlc3ludaaks7tukr@4ax.com> <e4c37jd4l9spbi5b23b525unp9p60ird8q@4ax.com> <v4sbut$1e75s$1@dont-email.me> <u8n37jt3o6smk5nbgrerfd31tcopk1ikkq@4ax.com> <v4sns0$1gk57$2@dont-email.me> <v4t2gn$1ipeh$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="438921"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$QqeIc6uznlGECEGSmIpGXe906GKUqRiT9QMhu5cIkU81DxGmE/xWO Bytes: 2478 Lines: 37 Stephen Fuld wrote: > Thomas Koenig wrote: >> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> schrieb: >> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:17:33 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig >> ><tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: >> >>John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> schrieb: >> > >> >>> Also, this looping instruction is strictly a way to directly >> encode >>> the FORTRAN DO loop. It does not attempt any vectorization. >> > >> > > Which one, the FORTRAN 66 one or the one since FORTRAN 77? >> >> > FORTRAN IV (or 66) indeed. >> >> It was actually not defined in the standard, in practice it >> was usually implemented by a test at the bottom of the loop, >> and programs depended on that. >> >> FORTRAN 77 fixed that, so now >> >> DO 100 I=1,0 >> >> ... >> 100 CONTINUE >> >> is executed zero times. > How does VVM handle that? It sems you must "waste" some time, not > executing the loop body until the furst LOOP instruction tells you > whether to or not, or perhaps not actually updating the values the > first time through the loop. Neither seems optimal. :-( The compiler emits code at the top of the loop to branch around the VEC-LOOP bookends.