Matthieu Brucher wrote: > Hi, > > It seems complicated to add OpenMP in the code, I don't think many > people have the knowlegde to do this, not mentioning the fact that > there are a lotof Python calls in the different functions.
Yes, this makes potential optimizations harder, at least for someone like me who do not know well about numpy internals. That's still something I have not thought a lot about, but that's an example of why I like the idea of splitting numpy C code in core C / wrappers: you would only use open MP in the core C library, and everything would be transparent at higher levels (if I understand correctly how openMP works, which may very well not be true :) ). OpenMP, sse, etc... those are different views of the same underlying "problem", in this context. But I do not know enough about numpy internals yet (in particular, how the number protocol works, and the relationship with the ufunc machinery) to know if it is feasible in a reasonable number of hours, or even if it is feasible at all :) > The multicore Matlab does seems for more related to the underlying > libraries than to something they did. > Yes, that's why I put the matlab link: actually, most of the parallel thing it does is related to the mkl and co. That's something which is much easier to handle, and possible right now if I understand right ? cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
