On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:24:59 +0100 (CET) Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Op Tue, 11 Dec 2007, schreef Mark Morgan Lloyd: > > > Florian Klaempfl wrote: > > > > > > It is common in the scientistware I benchmark daily. The evil > > > > geniuses parallelize their applications by placing a some OpenMP > > > > hints in their source code. > > > > > > Yes, but only some loops. But just imagine how OpenMP could help > > > in parallelization of the compiler? It can't imo. > > > > But in fairness a compiler is neither more nor less specialist than > > heavy numbercrunching code. OpenMP parallel procedures should, as > > one particular simple example, be able to improve Mandelbrot speed > > significantly since there is minimal interaction between the areas > > being calculated. > > > > There's lots more people running big finite difference or TLM > > models than are doing systems programming. Getting them interested > > in a language that is more friendly than C or FORTRAN would be to > > everybody's advantage. > > > > I've got some cellular automaton stuff that I want to look at, and > > while explicit threads are probably the way to go having implicit > > parallelisation would be a very interesting alternative. > > Manual threading is not very comfortable, that is not the point. The > point is, if we were to spend a lot of time on a parallelization > feature, we want to spend it well. > > OpenMP is just one way and has its limitations. True. Maybe it would be good to first start the OpenMP library part - a unit providing some functions to easily use light weight threads. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel