Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!prls!mips!earl
From: earl@mips.COM (Earl Killian)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 2-D arrays
Message-ID: <1797@gumby.mips.COM>
Date: 7 Mar 88 23:33:44 GMT
References: <179@wsccs.UUCP: <696@nuchat.UUCP> <284@scdpyr.UUCP> <25699@linus.UUCP> <2378@pdn.UUCP> <1020@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <244@eos.UUCP> <44258@sun.uucp>
Lines: 12
In-reply-to: ram%shukra@Sun.COM's message of 4 Mar 88 18:41:39 GMT


In article <44258@sun.uucp> ram%shukra@Sun.COM (Renu Raman, Taco-Bell Microsystems) writes:

     In any case, in the BSP, Kuck et. al. designed a memory system
     where the interleave size and bank size were relatively prime (16
     & 17 I think. - ref: paper by kuck & Stokes on BSP in IEEE TOC,
     May 82.  You can probably find it in Faye's book too).

     Only for succesive access to an array  that had a displacement of 17,
     would there be conflicts and I doubt if 17 was a favourite of
     Fortran Programmers.  

But watch out for the diagonal of a 50x50 or 256x256 array :-)