>fortunately, compiling an openMP code sequentially is trivial (just >remove the compile flags)
Yes, but code that would optimally coded to run in parallel may very well not run optimally in sequential, or at least that's what I've seen. Of course if you wrap the existent code in OpenMP then yes, you can make the comparison that way. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:34 AM, jeremy rosen <jeremy.ro...@enst-bretagne.fr>wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Michael Hoffman > <archangel.associ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The real trouble with OpenMP and threading ends up being less about the > > threads and more about whether or not anything is gained. > > > > From experience I've learned to keep a sequentially optimized version and > > always test against that. Even if all cores are being used in the openMP > > version there is a chance that bottlenecks slow it down enough to make > the > > sequential no slower. > > > > fortunately, compiling an openMP code sequentially is trivial (just > remove the compile flags) > The gain also higly depends on the number of cores that are used. > > Again it's all in the choice of what areas are to be parallelized. > Calculation intensive areas like AI or loading WML are the most likely > targets > > > -- > > Michael Hoffman > > ROSE Compiler Group > > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories > > Department of Energy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > > Wesnoth-dev@gna.org > > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev > > > > > -- Michael Hoffman ROSE Compiler Group Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Department of Energy
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
