Re: [pooma-dev] GCC 3.2 on Redhat 8.0--a fair number of compiler warnings?

[George Talbot]

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 16:50, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2003, George Talbot wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > New POOMA II user.  Got everything to compile and link today.  The
> > performance of this stuff is shocking.
> >
> > I ran a hand coded version of your 2D diffusion program on my box for
> > 250 steps, 800x800 array.  1m34s, uniprocessor.
> >
> > Using a stencil, same box, uniprocessor.  25s.  WOW.
> >
> > Using -shmem -np 2 to distribute the shared array version on both of my
> > processors on my box.  12s.  Truly amazing.  I think this may be a
> > dramatically useful tool.
> 
> You will find gcc-3.3 even more useful, combined with careful inline
> parameter tuning!

Really?  What enhancements make POOMA speedier?  The DFA scheduler? 
Type-based alias analysis for aggregates?  All of the above?  ;^)

> > The only thing that irks me a bit is that there are a fair number of
> > compiler warnings, which I will append, along with the source I used, to
> > this e-mail.  Is this normal?  Swimming in a sea of warnings from the
> > POOMA headers, I might miss some on my own code...
> 
> Without -Wall I dont see warnings from the POOMA headers with g++/icpc,
> but you are right, theres something to clean up. But as time is always
> short, fixing warnings that dont annoy me is not very high on my priority
> list. But I'm sure we're accepting patches to correct them (maybe...).

So I'm on my own, eh?  ;^)  If I come up with any good patches for
cleaning up warnings I encounter, shall I post them to this list?  Are
there any preferred formats?

--George

P.S.  Thanks for such an amazing tool.