(j3.2006) More on "contiguous"

[Van Snyder]

Does "contiguous" make any sense and confer any benefit for other than
the first dimension?

I have a dummy argument array D(:,:).  I know the actual argument is
contiguous in the first dimension because it's a section A(:n,:) of an
automatic variable.

The line-by-line profile says I'm spending 8.8% of a 25 hour run on one
statement "D(:,i) = 0.0" -- unless I'm not interpreting the profiler's
output correctly.  I assume that by reporting line 312, gprof is telling
me the basic block beginning (or ending?) at that line is what's being
reported.  Since the previous line is a DO statement and the next one is
an IF statement, I assume the reported time is all spent at this line.

The array D wouldn't be contiguous as a whole according to our current
definition, but I suspect it would be helpful if the processor knew the
first dimension were contiguous.  Is it ever helpful to know that more
dimensions are contiguous?  If not, can/should we change the definition
of "contiguous" to apply only to the first dimension?

-- 
Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.