[Beowulf] array shape difference
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Michael H. Frese Michael.Frese at NumerEx-LLC.comThu Nov 12 06:50:31 PST 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] array shape difference
- Next message: [Beowulf] array shape difference
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 06:26 AM 11/12/2009, Stuart Barkley wrote: >At 03:40 PM 11/11/2009, Peter St. John wrote: > > The difference between: > > array1(1:60000) > > array2(1:2, 1:30000) > > > > would be reflected in the size of the executable, not the size > > of the data. > > Right? > >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 at 07:18 -0000, Michael H. Frese wrote: > > > That's correct. The executable size would reflect the extra operations > > required to compute the offset for the doubly dimensioned array. > >Or maybe not. > ><theory> >If the fortran code is doing virtual subscripts (e.g. array2(i*2 + j)) >it would likely generate about the same code as the compiler would >generate for 2 dimensions. In theory, the compiler can generate >better subscript computation but I suspect in most reasonable (or >simple testing) cases the actual code size difference is a wash. ></theory> > >Go with what is most natural for expressing the algorithm. And ease >the future maintenance. > >Stuart Agreed. The code size differences would compiler dependent and minimal in any case. Human readability should determine the choice. Mike
- Previous message: [Beowulf] array shape difference
- Next message: [Beowulf] array shape difference
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
