Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
From: wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work
Summary: How to vectoriz in C?
Message-ID: <764@ubbpc.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 90 14:22:51 GMT
References: <7339@lanl.gov> <1990Nov30.163613.9562@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <26349:Dec404:38:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Unisys UNIX Portation Center, Blue Bell, PA
Lines: 30

In article <26349:Dec404:38:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> In article <763@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
> >		[ critical remarks about C programmers deleted ]
> [ ... ] And I regularly use a minisuper and a supermini
> with state-of-the art vectorizing and pipelining respectively.
> 

 I do not have a chance to work with this class of machine, so maybe you can
help me.  It is my impression that FORTRAN can do automatic vectorizing more
easily than C because the FORTRAN loop and flow of control statements are so
restricted (that surmise seems to be supported by other postings in this group).
In C, on the other hand, my impression is that the programmer must do his/her
vectorizing "by hand"; that compilers cannot do as much of the work
automatically.  If I am wrong on this point I would like to be corrected.

 Would you please post a page or so of a representative sample of your
vectorized C so we can look at the coding techniques?  Thanks!

> I've found C good enough. Why should I switch?

	 If you can handle it, go for it!
 
> ---Dan

  Bill
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh (work)
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	uunet!eidolon!wgh (home)
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121         "At the moment I feel more like arguing than
Blue Bell, PA 19424		being good" Raymond Smullyan _The Tao is Silent_


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com