Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Steve Williams wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. *procedure* SubTask(*var* x : *array of* Float); *var* /// Variables declared here have /|*private*|/ context./ iam : Integer; nt : Integer; ipoints : Integer; *parallel* iam := OMP.Get_Thread_Num; /// OMP library calls./ nt := OMP.Get_Num_Threads; ipoints := Length (x) *div* nt; /// size of partition/ istart := iam * ipoints; /// starting array index/ *if* iam = Pred (nt) *then* ipoints := Length (x) - istart; /// last thread may do more/ SubDomain (x, istart, ipoints); *end*; Wouldn't it be better to write it like this: procedure SubTask(var x: array of Float); parallel; var ... begin ... end; ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote: Steve Williams wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. *procedure* SubTask(*var* x : *array of* Float); *var* /// Variables declared here have /|*private*|/ context./ iam : Integer; nt : Integer; ipoints : Integer; *parallel* iam := OMP.Get_Thread_Num; /// OMP library calls./ nt := OMP.Get_Num_Threads; ipoints := Length (x) *div* nt; /// size of partition/ istart := iam * ipoints; /// starting array index/ *if* iam = Pred (nt) *then* ipoints := Length (x) - istart; /// last thread may do more/ SubDomain (x, istart, ipoints); *end*; Wouldn't it be better to write it like this: procedure SubTask(var x: array of Float); *parallel*; var ... begin ... end; Actually no. I thought about it, but I didn't get through all that stuff yesterday evening or else I would have updated the WiKi already. The problem I see is that the parallel directive has more meanings (basically it is the main directive). For that reason, I wouldn't want to put in on the callee, but rather on the caller. I think it would also be easier for the compiler then to detect alls those parallel regions. Let's see. Anyway, there was already more response I would have expected after the days of silence. :) Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
2006/7/27, Vinzent Hoefler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote: Steve Williams wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. *procedure* SubTask(*var* x : *array of* Float); *var* /// Variables declared here have /|*private*|/ context./ iam : Integer; nt : Integer; ipoints : Integer; *parallel* iam := OMP.Get_Thread_Num; /// OMP library calls./ nt := OMP.Get_Num_Threads; ipoints := Length (x) *div* nt; /// size of partition/ istart := iam * ipoints; /// starting array index/ *if* iam = Pred (nt) *then* ipoints := Length (x) - istart; /// last thread may do more/ SubDomain (x, istart, ipoints); *end*; Wouldn't it be better to write it like this: procedure SubTask(var x: array of Float); *parallel*; var ... begin ... end; Actually no. I thought about it, but I didn't get through all that stuff yesterday evening or else I would have updated the WiKi already. The problem I see is that the parallel directive has more meanings (basically it is the main directive). For that reason, I wouldn't want to put in on the callee, but rather on the caller. I think it would also be easier for the compiler then to detect alls those parallel regions. Let's see. Anyway, there was already more response I would have expected after the days of silence. :) What about the same approach as the class procedures? Actually we have in a class the possibility to: class procedure MyProc; class function MyFunc: Integer; Then we could very simply have: parallel procedure ParallelBlock; parallel function ParallelFunction; //if this can happen... Also, I read that in example 1: Variables declared here should have shared context. In fact by default they have private context and to me it looks like more normal. Maybe we should have a way to do the contrary: specify that a variable has shared context... What others think? -- Alexandre Leclerc ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:53, Alexandre Leclerc wrote: Then we could very simply have: parallel procedure ParallelBlock; parallel function ParallelFunction; //if this can happen... Yes. I thought of something like that, because it could quite easily match with a parallel for construct. That's why I don't like the idea of a function modifier. But pleeeaaase, people. This was only one single and little example and it's not nearly close to what the spec says. It just scratched the surface of it. So it's a bit early to hang on this only parallel keyword in that particular example. In the end, *all* constructs should nicely match together. What about those parallel section and parallel workshare constructs? The latter bothers me a lot (section might prove to be quite easy) plus all the /parameters/ those stuff can have: You don't want to write |parallel (Num_Threads := 3, ...) |function or something similar, do you? Or think of this reduction keyword... Also, I read that in example 1: Variables declared here should have shared context. Yes, if they're declared outside of the parallel block, they can be seen by every single one, so shared would IMO be a more natural visibility rule here. This could remove the need for another keyword. In fact by default they have private context and to me it looks like more normal. What do you mean by default? The OpenMP spec? Well, I wasn't trying to copy the idiocies mainly caused by the chosen base language(s). :- Thread private variables don't make sense outside of the parallel block, especially *after* it, so why should the default be private here? Maybe we should have a way to do the contrary: specify that a variable has shared context... What others think? The approach allowed both in a (I think, logical way, because of the implied scoping rules). The problems begin with the firstprivate and such directives. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to begin with. Any suggestions are welcome, of course. Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? Micha ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to begin with. Any suggestions are welcome, of course. Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to begin with. Any suggestions are welcome, of course. Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Strange. How many copies ? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Strange. That somehow applies to the whole original specification. :) How many copies ? Omp.Get_Num_Threads(), AFAICS. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Micha Nelissen schreef: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Strange. How many copies ? Looking at the example, I would say as many copies as there are threads: OMP.Get_Thread_Num Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote: How many copies ? Omp.Get_Num_Threads(), AFAICS. Ah the number of threads is determined by the RTL, and any parallel block must be written flexible, so that it can work for any given number of threads ? Micha ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to begin with. Any suggestions are welcome, of course. Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Hey, it's only *one* new keyword yet. :) Admitted, local blocks are more Adaish, but with this approach, I was trying to avoid introducing a lot more keywords. There still probably will be some, because there are more constructs like barrier, workshare (which I didn't fully understand yet) and section. And well, such blocks are already known in Object Pascal. Just look at them as in object declarations the public/protected/private modifiers. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. Yes. I agree with that. The problem is that there are more variable types than just shared and private (like firstprivate), so it might prove to be quite difficult to do that if you only have local functions. I just didn't come to that part yet. I'll probably update the WiKi this evening/night (can't do that from work, where freepascal.org still times out). Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't
use it.
Let's use the language features to their full extent.
*procedure* SubDomain (*var* x : *array of* Float;
istart : Integer;
ipoints : Integer)
*var*
i : Integer;
*begin*
*for* i := 0 *to* ipoints - 1 *do*
x[istart + i] := 123.456;
*end* /{SubDomain}/;
*procedure* Sub (*var* x : *array of* Float);
/// Variables declared here should have /|*shared*|/ context./
/// This would include the function's parameters then.../
*procedure* SubTask(*var* x : *array of* Float);
*var*
/// Variables declared here have /|*private*|/ context./
iam : Integer;
nt : Integer;
ipoints : Integer;
*parallel*
iam := OMP.Get_Thread_Num; /// OMP library calls./
nt := OMP.Get_Num_Threads;
ipoints := Length (x) *div* nt; /// size of partition/
istart := iam * ipoints; /// starting array index/
*if* iam = Pred (nt) *then*
ipoints := Length (x) - istart; /// last thread may do more/
SubDomain (x, istart, ipoints);
*end*;
*begin*
SubTask(x);
*end* /{Sub}/;
*var*
arr = *array*[0 .. ] *of* Float;
*begin* / // Main program/
Sub (arr);
*end*.
--
Sly
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this
message and its attachments, which does not relate to the official business of
the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by the
sending company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the
e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Steve Williams wrote:
*begin*
SubTask(x);
*end* /{Sub}/;
*var*
arr = *array*[0 .. ] *of* Float;
*begin* / // Main program/
Sub (arr);
*end*.
Damn Thunderbird.
--
Sly
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this
message and its attachments, which does not relate to the official business of
the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by the
sending company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the
e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:25, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote: How many copies ? Omp.Get_Num_Threads(), AFAICS. Ah the number of threads is determined by the RTL, and any parallel block must be written flexible, so that it can work for any given number of threads ? Yes and no. I think, there are constructs to set a specific number of threads. And as I tried to say, the specification is quite large. If not to say even convoluted. I've seen easier to read stuff recently. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Michael Van Canneyt schreef: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to begin with. Any suggestions are welcome, of course. Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be started in parallel ? The latter. Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't use it. Let's use the language features to their full extent. I added an example with nested procedures. Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: The latter. Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. There is no real reason to restrict 'parallel' to local functions, is there ? Micha ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:28, Steve Williams wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
*begin*
SubTask(x);
*end* /{Sub}/;
*var*
arr = *array*[0 .. ] *of* Float;
*begin* / // Main program/
Sub (arr);
*end*.
Damn Thunderbird.
Well, it tried to mimic my syntax highlighting. :) Apart from that, your
change is quite nice, yes. That's what Michael meant, I guess.
Vinzent.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: The latter. Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions. There is no real reason to restrict 'parallel' to local functions, is there ? No, but I used that because in the example you make use of variables defined in the local function, but also in the parent function. It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a global function writes to variables outside it's own scope, in which case it's probably a no-no to paralellize the function. The programmer could help there by adding the parallel keyword indicating that the programmer knows it is safe to parallelize it. For local functions it is less obvious, there the compiler could use some help in most cases... Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a global function writes to variables outside it's own scope, in which case it's probably a no-no to paralellize the function. Hey, you're trying to put more burden on the compiler here as the spec even allows, I'd say. Don't go on or you'll end up with the requirement for compile time dead-lock detection. :) Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a global function writes to variables outside it's own scope, in which case it's probably a no-no to paralellize the function. Hey, you're trying to put more burden on the compiler here as the spec even allows, I'd say. Don't go on or you'll end up with the requirement for compile time dead-lock detection. :) Well, my statement is moderate in the sense that the compiler does this anyway already (see the hints/warnings about unused params/vars); let's use this information as much as we can. To avoid more difficult detections such as possible dead-locks, I would let the programmer add some keywords... Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a global function writes to variables outside it's own scope, in which case it's probably a no-no to paralellize the function. Hey, you're trying to put more burden on the compiler here as the spec even allows, I'd say. Don't go on or you'll end up with the requirement for compile time dead-lock detection. :) Well, my statement is moderate in the sense that the compiler does this anyway already (see the hints/warnings about unused params/vars); let's use this information as much as we can. True. Using information that's already there, can't be wrong. I second that. We're not C, where everything is standardized to be the programmer's problem. So yes, if concurrency will ever be implemented in the language, no matter how, some decent warnings/hints/notes about several questionable constructs would be nice. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:28:17 +1000
Steve Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
One of the pretexts behind OpenMP is that the code will still compile
if
OpenMP is not available or disabled on a particular compiler.
Mwah... in that case you can still use the same keywords, only it won't
be much parallel, since it's executed in one thread.
And beeing executed in one or more threads should not matter in parallel
blocks.
But then your code is locked to that version of FPC that supports those
new keywords.
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives.
Therefore if your code should work with multiple compilers, you will
probably enclose the omp additions with IFDEFs anyway.
{$IFDEF HasOMP}cobegin{$ENDIF}
OpenMP uses pragmas, because
- They didn't want to break ANSI C. FPC has its own mode and compatibility
modes for others.
- It takes time before all the C compilers support the OMP additions.
For example default gcc does not yet.
Do we plan a syntax for FPC or for pascal in general?
- C programmers are more used to macros and pragmas, than pascal programmers
to compiler directives.
IMO Directives are ugly.
- C programmers are more used to hints and notes, than pascal programmers.
Although recent fpc additions changed that (hints about
unused/uninitialised variables).
IMO Noisy notes make it harder to find the relevant compiler messages.
Mattias
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
John Coppens wrote: On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:11:49 +0200 Vinzent Höfler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Burns? That's a name which rings a bell. You could have send the URL, though. ;) http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~burns/pf.html Hmm, and taking a peek look at the examples, it doesn't really surprise me, that this just looks like the Pascal version of Ada's tasking. Hi Vinzent. Yes - quite famous. But apart from the ADA style resources, it also implement a number of other tools, such as channels/remote invocation, etc. Yes, he borrowed from quite some concurrent languages (the semaphore could be Modula, and the channels maybe occam, I'm not sure). It still looks very much like Ada to me, especially the remote invocation just looks like Ada's rendezvous. Well, he calls it process, not task - just like in VHDL - but apart from that it looks very similar. The cobegin/coend pair to specify concurrency is elegant, though maybe somewhat 'flat'. What do you mean by 'flat'? That it can't be nested? If I read the OpenMP specs correctly, they say there, that they don't expect vendors to implement nested stuff real soon anyway. :) Yet, I don't see a compelling reason - apart from the question how to implement it - why a nice new syntax couldn't nest cobegins just like we already do with begins: cobegin Do_This; Do_That; cobegin Do_More; Do_Much_More; coend; coend; Not sure of that would work. ;) Well, I guess, I have to read the specs more thoroughly, perhaps I come up with an idea, how all this stuff can be mapped nicely to this ugly C hack. They even state, that they are so much more special an better compared with all the existing concurrent languages, that I'd like to prove them otherwise. ;) Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marco van de Voort wrote: new keywords. Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives. Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) Does Delphi support FPC style macros? In that case, perhaps as sort of include file to map cobegin or whatever to normal ones ... And then I prefer the clean syntax. Yes, absolutely. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marco van de Voort wrote: new keywords. Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives. Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) Does Delphi support FPC style macros? In that case, perhaps as sort of include file to map cobegin or whatever to normal ones ... No. There is not much that can be done about this. Except postprocessing FPC source and stripping out paralel syntax. Be it directives or keywords. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marco van de Voort wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: new keywords. Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives. Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) Does Delphi support FPC style macros? In that case, perhaps as sort of include file to map cobegin or whatever to normal ones ... No. There is not much that can be done about this. Except postprocessing FPC source and stripping out paralel syntax. Be it directives or keywords. In that case directives don't make any sense like they'd do in a C-version. So it'll have to be syntax. :) Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Vinzent Höfler wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: new keywords. Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives. Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) Does Delphi support FPC style macros? In that case, perhaps as sort of include file to map cobegin or whatever to normal ones ... No. There is not much that can be done about this. Except postprocessing FPC source and stripping out paralel syntax. Be it directives or keywords. In that case directives don't make any sense like they'd do in a C-version. So it'll have to be syntax. :) Ok. Beaten. :) But at least it provoked discussion on it. -- Sly This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments, which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by the sending company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On 21 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Marco van de Voort wrote: Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives. Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) I think at least in this case GPC also matters, since Florian is also soliciting feedback on the syntax on the GPC list (and code written for parallel calculations can probably be easily made compatible with multiple Pascal dialects). I don't know what they do with unknown compiler directives though. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On 21 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Marco van de Voort wrote: Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler directives. So you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6) I think at least in this case GPC also matters, since Florian is also soliciting feedback on the syntax on the GPC list (and code written for parallel calculations can probably be easily made compatible with multiple Pascal dialects). I meant more that GPC also still can implement the new syntax. This will be a bit harder with Delphi :-) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear
other ideas first so they are maybe better if they aren't influenced by
my ideas :)
I started also a wiki page about it
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/OpenMP_support where ideas can
be written down and shared.
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++ implementation,
but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
Example A.5.1:
uses omp;
begin
omp_set_dynamic(1);
{$omp parallel num_threads(10)}
begin
(* Do work here *)
end;
end;
Example A.13.1:
interface
function dequeue(var a: Single): Integer;
procedure work(i: Integer; var a: Single);
implementation
procedure a13(var x: Single; var y: Single);
var
ix_next, iy_next: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel shared(x, y) private(ix_next, iy_next)}
begin
{$omp critical (xaxis)}
ix_next := dequeue(x);
work(ix_next, x);
{$omp critical (yaxis)}
iy_next := dequeue(y);
work(iy_next, y);
end;
end;
--
Sly
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this
message and its attachments, which does not relate to the official business of
the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by the
sending company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the
e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
2006/7/20, Steve Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear
other ideas first so they are maybe better if they aren't influenced by
my ideas :)
I started also a wiki page about it
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/OpenMP_support where ideas can
be written down and shared.
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++ implementation,
but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
I fear this just looks like a terrible stranger-outsider pach to a
superbe language. :) If fpc peoples want to implement new language
syntax... may it be pascal-like and good looking. At least in the
previous example, a closing block would be required... as for myself:
{$omp parallel for}
...
[$omp end}
The same for the other examples. So if the directive is not understood
by the compiler, it becomes standard code without any problems. For
me, the best approach would be an unit to be used; not language
implementation. (In that unit you could have ugly compiler magic if
you want, but at least, when using this technology, it would be much
more like using a standard class or set of procedures.)
Any-way; Reagards.
--
Alexandre Leclerc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Isn't there a copascal that already has established concurent pascal syntax? if not, the other wirthian languages look like logical providers? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marco van de Voort wrote: Isn't there a copascal that already has established concurent pascal syntax? Yes, there is, but its syntax is very limited AFAICS. if not, the other wirthian languages look like logical providers? Ada tasking? Well, too much overkill, I think. ;) My problem with the OpenMP stuff is that it's more C-centric than concurrency-centric: Basically they give a compiler hints that some sequential statement could be executed concurrently. A concurrent language goes a different way, there you would simply instantiate the assignment multiple times whether its like cobegin in ConcurrentPascal, PAR in Occam2, or task types in Ada. So at first the question should be answered if OpenMP in FreePascal should be implemented on language (means: special syntax) level or with compiler directives more similar to the C-version. Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
Florian,
Have you looked at Pascal-FC (a language developped based Pascal/0, I
believe, by Alan Burns)? I've used it to teach multiprogramming, and it
incorporates many of the items which are available in several other
MP languages (such as ADA). It's probably too basic, but there may be
some useful ideas.
Is _is_ very clean though. No {$xxx's etc...
John
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
John Coppens wrote: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200 Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC. Florian, Have you looked at Pascal-FC (a language developped based Pascal/0, I believe, by Alan Burns)? Alan Burns? That's a name which rings a bell. You could have send the URL, though. ;) http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~burns/pf.html Hmm, and taking a peek look at the examples, it doesn't really surprise me, that this just looks like the Pascal version of Ada's tasking. Regards, Vinzent. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Steve Williams wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear
other ideas first so they are maybe better if they aren't influenced by
my ideas :)
I started also a wiki page about it
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/OpenMP_support where ideas can
be written down and shared.
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++ implementation,
but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
Brrr using local defines look not native to the language.
Why not something like as (refered in another thread) pascal-fc which
uses cobegin..coend or known blocks like asm..end; try..end;
for instance:
omp..end;
parralel..end;
so:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
parallel
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
end;
Example A.5.1:
uses omp;
begin
omp_set_dynamic(1);
{$omp parallel num_threads(10)}
begin
(* Do work here *)
end;
end;
uses omp;
begin
omp_set_dynamic(1);
// {$omp parallel num_threads(10)}
// why not:
omp_set_num_threads(10);
parallel
(* Do work here *)
end;
end;
Example A.13.1:
interface
function dequeue(var a: Single): Integer;
procedure work(i: Integer; var a: Single);
implementation
procedure a13(var x: Single; var y: Single);
var
ix_next, iy_next: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel shared(x, y) private(ix_next, iy_next)}
begin
{$omp critical (xaxis)}
ix_next := dequeue(x);
work(ix_next, x);
{$omp critical (yaxis)}
iy_next := dequeue(y);
work(iy_next, y);
end;
end;
procedure a13(var ax: Single; var ay: Single);
begin
parallel
shared
x: Single; absolute ax;
y: Single; absolute ay;
private
ix_next, iy_next: Integer;
begin
// where does xaxis come from ?
// {$omp critical (xaxis)}
ix_next := dequeue(x);
work(ix_next, x);
// where does yaxis come from ?
// {$omp critical (yaxis)}
iy_next := dequeue(y);
work(iy_next, y);
end;
end;
or:
procedure a13(var ax: Single; shared var y: Single);
shared var
x: Single; absolute ax;
// y: Single; absolute ay;
private var
ix_next, iy_next: Integer;
begin
parallel
// where does xaxis come from ?
// {$omp critical (xaxis)}
ix_next := dequeue(x);
work(ix_next, x);
// where does yaxis come from ?
// {$omp critical (yaxis)}
iy_next := dequeue(y);
work(iy_next, y);
end;
end;
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
Brrr using local defines look not native to the language.
Not native. Well, I would have prefered the term darn ugly. :)
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
parallel
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
end;
Yes, this idea looks *much* nicer. And much more Pascalish.
Vinzent.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:11:49 +0200 Vinzent Höfler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan Burns? That's a name which rings a bell. You could have send the URL, though. ;) http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~burns/pf.html Hmm, and taking a peek look at the examples, it doesn't really surprise me, that this just looks like the Pascal version of Ada's tasking. Hi Vinzent. Yes - quite famous. But apart from the ADA style resources, it also implement a number of other tools, such as channels/remote invocation, etc. The cobegin/coend pair to specify concurrency is elegant, though maybe somewhat 'flat'. John ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++ implementation,
but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
Brrr using local defines look not native to the language.
Why not something like as (refered in another thread) pascal-fc which
uses cobegin..coend or known blocks like asm..end; try..end;
for instance:
omp..end;
parralel..end;
One of the pretexts behind OpenMP is that the code will still compile if
OpenMP is not available or disabled on a particular compiler. That's
the reason behind using compiler directives instead of new keywords.
Using compiler directives similar to the C/C++ directives also means
that the wealth of information already out there is instantly applicable
to the Pascal version.
--
Sly
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this
message, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this
message and its attachments, which does not relate to the official business of
the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by the
sending company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the
e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Steve Williams wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++
implementation, but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
Brrr using local defines look not native to the language.
Why not something like as (refered in another thread) pascal-fc which
uses cobegin..coend or known blocks like asm..end; try..end;
for instance:
omp..end;
parralel..end;
One of the pretexts behind OpenMP is that the code will still compile if
OpenMP is not available or disabled on a particular compiler.
Mwah... in that case you can still use the same keywords, only it won't
be much parallel, since it's executed in one thread.
And beeing executed in one or more threads should not matter in parallel
blocks.
Marc
That's
the reason behind using compiler directives instead of new keywords.
Using compiler directives similar to the C/C++ directives also means
eehh... to repeat what someone else already mentioned in this thread,
if I want to use C, I don't use pascal.
Marc.
that the wealth of information already out there is instantly applicable
to the Pascal version.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200 Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC. There seems to be something in the air. I had the same idea two weeks ago. Well, to be honest, I had the idea as I heard of OpenMP 3 years ago, but now I want to finally do it. I want to first write a tutorial for MPICH for FPC and then take a closer look on OpenMP, to get used to it and find out it advantages and disadvantages. We don't need to make the same errors as the C and Fortran compilers. However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined for OpenMp support. Right. AFAIK OpenMP is only a standard for C/C++ and Fortran. It's not an implementation. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear other ideas first so they are maybe better if they aren't influenced by my ideas :) I started also a wiki page about it http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/OpenMP_support where ideas can be written down and shared. As soon as I done some more OpenMP experiments and made up my mind, I will join. :) Mattias ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
2006/7/17, Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200 Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined for OpenMp support. Right. AFAIK OpenMP is only a standard for C/C++ and Fortran. It's not an implementation. If ever it needed an implementation (which I'm glad to hear it is not), maybe a section should be used like with asm (assembler) code. At first glance (2 minutes) I was not able to grasp the big thing about that; are we not yet able to do multi-threaded programming in FPC? -- Alexandre Leclerc ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC. Is this similar as polyphinic C# ? (you gave me a link a while ago) What I'm puzzeled with, usually an API specifies the interface to an external library, where here it seems a spec how a language should behave when implementing Multi Processing (and in this case for C++ and Fortran). Is the idea to implement a similar, based on the ideas of openMP, version for FPC? Marc ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Common OpenMP syntax?
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC. However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear other ideas first so they are maybe better if they aren't influenced by my ideas :) I started also a wiki page about it http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/OpenMP_support where ideas can be written down and shared. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
