As an alternate to whether we go along with open mp or whatever in the current discussion, why don't we take notice of the previous email discussion about fpc deciding things for itself & just do the very very simplest (even noddy) thing that'll give people who aren't gurus the ability to use the processing on a multi core system that are becoming so cheap & popular - I think joost suggested something like this here 1st but maybe we should make it even simpler.
Eg only allow the parallel or async keyword (I personally do not care which) on an otherwise normal procedure and then another procedure/keyword isfinished(x)? which checks whether the 'parallel' procedure x has finished. With minimum (ie no) checking for whether the procedure uses global data. It wouldn't be foolproof but would be easily usable, wouldn't it. Because it's so simple we could then announce that we support parallelism eg in 2.2.4 or 2.4? Of course if a de facto standard did come along eg in Delphi or some other of the languages mentioned, we could take a view as to whether we'd support it. John This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
