On 4 May 2011 21:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 08:07 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 19:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> Moving pull
On 05/04/2011 08:07 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 19:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Moving pull requestion discussion
(https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
over here:
First, I g
On 4 May 2011 19:44, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Moving pull requestion discussion
>>> (https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
>>> over here:
>>>
>>> First, I got curious why you'd
On 05/04/2011 07:03 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Moving pull requestion discussion (https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
over here:
First, I got curious why you'd have a strip off "-pthread" from CC. I'd
think you could just execute with it wi
On 4 May 2011 18:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> Moving pull requestion discussion (https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28)
> over here:
>
> First, I got curious why you'd have a strip off "-pthread" from CC. I'd
> think you could just execute with it with "-pthread", which seems simpler.
It
Moving pull requestion discussion
(https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/28) over here:
First, I got curious why you'd have a strip off "-pthread" from CC. I'd
think you could just execute with it with "-pthread", which seems simpler.
Second: If parallel.parallel is not callable, how are sche
On 4 May 2011 14:23, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 02:17 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/20
On 05/04/2011 02:17 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
O
On 4 May 2011 14:17, mark florisson wrote:
> On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2011 13:47, mar
On 4 May 2011 14:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2011 13:45,
On 05/04/2011 01:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florissonwrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Look.
i = 42
for i in prange(n):
f(i)
print i
On 4 May 2011 13:54, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
>
Look.
i = 42
for i in prange(n):
f(i)
print i # want 4
On 05/04/2011 01:48 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Look.
i = 42
for i in prange(n):
f(i)
print i # want 42 whenever n == 0
Now, translate this to:
i = 42;
#pragma omp parallel for firstprivate(i) l
On 4 May 2011 13:47, mark florisson wrote:
> On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 01:41 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag
On 4 May 2011 13:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:41 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/20
On 05/04/2011 01:41 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:39, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/20
On 05/04/2011 01:30 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
There are two remaining issue. The first is warning
On 4 May 2011 13:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
There are two remaining issue. The first is warnings for potentially
unin
On 05/04/2011 12:59 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
There are two remaining issue. The first is warnings for potentially
uninitialized variables for prange(). When you do
for i in prange(start, stop, step
On 4 May 2011 12:45, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
>
On 05/04/2011 12:00 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I
On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:25 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote
On 21 April 2011 20:13, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> In terms of the CEP, I'm still unconvinced that firstprivate is not
>> safe to infer, but lets leave the initial values undefined rather than
>> specifying them to be NaNs (we can d
On 04/21/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't
have a look yet but I will later)
You're right about (the curre
On 21 April 2011 11:18, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:59 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> Excell
On 21 April 2011 11:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:21 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 21 April 2011 10:59, mark florisson wrote:
>>> On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 18 April
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:21 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 10:59, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> Excellent
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:59 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some day
On 21 April 2011 10:59, mark florisson wrote:
> On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't
On 21 April 2011 10:37, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't
>>> have a look yet but I will later)
>>>
>>> You're
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:51 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't
>> have a look yet but I will later)
>>
>> You're right about (the current) buffers and the gil. A testcase
On 18 April 2011 16:41, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't
> have a look yet but I will later)
>
> You're right about (the current) buffers and the gil. A testcase explicitly
> for them would be good.
>
> Firstprivate etc: i thin
Excellent! Sounds great! (as I won't have my laptop for some days I can't have
a look yet but I will later)
You're right about (the current) buffers and the gil. A testcase explicitly for
them would be good.
Firstprivate etc: i think it'd be nice myself, but it is probably better to
take a bre
On 18 April 2011 16:01, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> (apologies for top post)
No problem, it means I have to scroll less :)
> This all seems to scream 'disallow' to me, in particular since some openmp
> implementations may not support it etc.
>
> At any rate I feel 'parallel/parallel/prange/pra
(apologies for top post)
This all seems to scream 'disallow' to me, in particular since some openmp
implementations may not support it etc.
At any rate I feel 'parallel/parallel/prange/prange' is going to far; so next
step could be to only allowing 'parallel/prange/parallel/prange'.
But really
On 18 April 2011 13:06, mark florisson wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 18:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> (Moving discussion from http://markflorisson.wordpress.com/, where Mark
>> said:)
>
> Ok, sure, it was just an issue I was wondering about at that moment,
> but it's a tricky issue, so thanks
On 16 April 2011 18:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> (Moving discussion from http://markflorisson.wordpress.com/, where Mark
> said:)
Ok, sure, it was just an issue I was wondering about at that moment,
but it's a tricky issue, so thanks.
> """
> Started a new branch https://github.com/markflor
(Moving discussion from http://markflorisson.wordpress.com/, where Mark
said:)
"""
Started a new branch https://github.com/markflorisson88/cython/tree/openmp .
Now the question is whether sharing attributes should be propagated
outwards. e.g. if you do
for i in prange(m):
for j in prange
On 14 April 2011 21:37, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 09:08 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2011 20:58, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/14/2011 08:42 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> On
On 04/14/2011 09:08 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 April 2011 20:58, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/14/2011 08:42 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
"Th
On 14 April 2011 20:58, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 08:42 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
"The omp_get_max_thre
On 04/14/2011 08:42 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
"The omp_get_max_threads routine returns an upper bound on the number
of threads that could be used to form
On 04/14/2011 08:39 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
"The omp_get_max_threads routine returns an upper bound on the number
of threads that could be used to form
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
>>
>> "The omp_get_max_threads routine returns an upper bound on the number
>> of threads that could be used to form a new team if a parallel region
>>
On 14 April 2011 20:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
>>
>> "The omp_get_max_threads routine returns an upper bound on the number
>> of threads that could be used to form a new team if a parallel region
>>
On 04/13/2011 11:13 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Although there is omp_get_max_threads():
"The omp_get_max_threads routine returns an upper bound on the number
of threads that could be used to form a new team if a parallel region
without a num_threads clause were encountered after execution return
On 13 April 2011 22:53, mark florisson wrote:
> On 13 April 2011 21:57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 04/13/2011 09:31 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot
On 13 April 2011 21:57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 09:31 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
>>> the feedback.
>>>
>>> Thread-private variables are
On 04/13/2011 09:31 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little t
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
> the feedback.
>
> Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
>
> i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical knowledge ->
> automatically in
On 04/11/2011 01:12 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 13:03, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 01:02 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 12:14 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 12:08, Dag Sverre
Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson w
On 11 April 2011 13:03, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 01:02 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 04/11/2011 12:14 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 April 2011 12:08, Dag Sverre
>>> Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 11 Ap
On 04/11/2011 01:02 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 12:14 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 12:08, Dag Sverre
Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 11:10, Dag Sverre
Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrot
On 04/11/2011 12:14 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 12:08, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 11:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
On 11 April 2011 12:08, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 11 April 2011 11:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> I'v
On 04/11/2011 11:41 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 11 April 2011 11:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
the feedback.
Threa
On 11 April 2011 11:10, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
>>> the feedback.
>>>
>>> Thread-private variables are
On 04/11/2011 10:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little t
On 5 April 2011 22:29, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot of
> the feedback.
>
> Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
>
> i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical knowledge ->
> automatically in
On 04/05/2011 10:29 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot
of the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical
knowledge -> automatically inferred
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot
of the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical
knowledge -> automatically inferred
ii) As an advanced feature, unsafe cases that requi
64 matches
Mail list logo
