https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #10 from Jeff Hammond ---
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that it is a huge amount of work to optimize
this.
For what it's worth, GCC and Clang perform about the same. Unfortunately, I do
not have the means to evaluate IBM XLF,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With schedule(static) or schedule(dynamic) etc. I believe the compiler is not
allowed to do it, at least if it can't prove it won't be observable.
So, if you have
int cnt = 0;
#pragma omp parallel for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #8 from Jeff Hammond ---
I tried with schedule(dynamic) and schedule(static,n) for n=1,8,100. None of
this made a positive difference. Is that expected? I'm happy to make any code
changes that don't break correctness and are still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC implements what is required if there is schedule(static), which is the
implementation defined schedule right now, which gives the requirement how the
iterations are distributed to different threads and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #6 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41566
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41566=edit
tasks C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41565=edit
header for C++ codes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #4 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41564=edit
doacross C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41563=edit
sequential C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41562=edit
tasks Fortran
This code runs faster than serial (assuming blocking is used), showing that
this pattern can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81108
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Hammond ---
Created attachment 41561
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41561=edit
doacross Fortran
10 matches
Mail list logo
