On 23/03/2008, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gnata Xavier wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a very limited knowledge of openmp but please consider this > > testcase : > > > > > > > Honestly, if it was that simple, it would already have been done for a > long time. The problem is that your test-case is not even remotely close > to how things have to be done in numpy.
Actually, there are a few places where a parallel for would serve to accelerate all ufuncs. There are build issues, yes, though they are mild; we would also want to provide some API to turn parallelization on and off, and we'd have to verify that OpenMP did not slow down small arrays, but that would be it. (And I suspect that OpenMP is smart enough to use single threads without locking when multiple threads won't help. Certainly all the information is available to OpenMP to make such decisions.) This is why I suggested making this change: it should be a low-cost, high-gain change. Anne _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
