On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough. Unfortunately, although Chandler did touch on this, the relevant > part of the criterion appears to be this, "Clang should drive the standard, > not diverge from it. This criterion does not apply to all extensions, since > some extensions fall outside of the realm of the standards bodies." The C/C++ > committees have adopted library support for parallelism, and perhaps that is > enough. If it is not enough (because of overheads, the inherent lack of > semantics-aware optimizations, etc.) then we can consider other avenues. > Cilk, or some derivative of it, was proposed to the committee, and rejected > (according to Chandler's comments). Is the committee likely to adopt some > other syntax-based approach in the near future? Or was this kind of extension > decided to be out-of-scope for the time being. If it was decided to be > out-of-scope, then it qualifies for the exemption.
Doug took all the words out of my mouth for most of this, but I'd like to clarify what I mean here in particular. The Cilk proposal was not rejected. I don't really think there has not been a formal proposal per se... Folks presented Cilk (and many other technologies in the industry) to the committee to try to help inform it as to what solutions were out there, and what they might look as part of standard C++. They've even presented different aspects or possibilities surrounding a few of the technologies to try to get more ideas going. Currently the committee has been giving feedback on exactly how different aspects would or wouldn't fit into the standard, etc., and folks seem to be looking into how the fundamental capabilities of something like Cilk could be best integrated with the language as a whole. That's what I was trying to say -- the only thing that seems clear is that we don't yet have a clear picture of what will end up being in the standard. =] That said, I'm personally confident that these forms of parallelism *are* in scope for the standard, and reasonably optimistic that we'll get something figured out in the C++17 timeframe. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
