Steve Williams wrote:
Michael
Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have
them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why
they can't use it.
Let's
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local
functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it,
2006/7/27, Vinzent Hoefler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local
functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local
On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:53, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
Then we could very simply have:
parallel procedure ParallelBlock;
parallel function ParallelFunction; //if this can happen...
Yes. I thought of something like that, because it could quite easily
match with a parallel for construct.
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being
complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is it
really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start; something to
begin with.
Any suggestions are welcome, of course.
Does
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being
complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is
it really thought through yet, but well, it might be a start;
something to
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being
complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is
it really thought through
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in
parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be
started in parallel ?
The latter.
Strange. How many copies ?
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed
in parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements
can be started in
Micha Nelissen schreef:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Does parallel mean all the statements in the block can be executed in
parallel, or that multiple copies of the block of statements can be
started in parallel ?
The latter.
Strange. How many
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote:
How many copies ?
Omp.Get_Num_Threads(), AFAICS.
Ah the number of threads is determined by the RTL, and any parallel
block must be written flexible, so that it can work for any given number
of threads ?
Micha
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from
being complete yet (it just covers a
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why they can't
use it.
Let's use the language features to their full extent.
Steve Williams wrote:
*begin*
SubTask(x);
*end* /{Sub}/;
*var*
arr = *array*[0 .. ] *of* Float;
*begin* / // Main program/
Sub (arr);
*end*.
Damn Thunderbird.
--
Sly
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:25, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:07, Micha Nelissen wrote:
How many copies ?
Omp.Get_Num_Threads(), AFAICS.
Ah the number of threads is determined by the RTL, and any parallel
block must be written flexible, so
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 08:17, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Well, I just added some stuff there, yesterday. It's far from being
complete yet (it just covers a basic parallel construct), nor is
it
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The latter.
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
There is no real reason to restrict 'parallel' to local functions, is
there ?
Micha
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:28, Steve Williams wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
*begin*
SubTask(x);
*end* /{Sub}/;
*var*
arr = *array*[0 .. ] *of* Float;
*begin* / // Main program/
Sub (arr);
*end*.
Damn Thunderbird.
Well, it tried to mimic my syntax
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The latter.
Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
There is no real reason to restrict 'parallel' to local functions, is
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in
parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a
global function writes to variables outside it's own scope, in which
case it's probably a no-no to
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in
parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect whether a
global function writes to variables outside it's own
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 09:46, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
It seems obvious to me that a global function can be called in
parallel at any time. The compiler can perfectly detect
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:28:17 +1000
Steve Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
One of the pretexts behind OpenMP is that the code will still compile
if
OpenMP is not available or disabled on a particular compiler.
Mwah... in that case you can still use the same
John Coppens wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:11:49 +0200
Vinzent Höfler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Burns? That's a name which rings a bell. You could have send the
URL, though. ;)
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~burns/pf.html
Hmm, and taking a peek look at the examples, it doesn't really
Marco van de Voort wrote:
new keywords.
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives.
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler
directives. So
you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6)
Does Delphi support FPC style macros? In
Marco van de Voort wrote:
new keywords.
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives.
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown
compiler directives. So
you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6)
Does Delphi support FPC style
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
new keywords.
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives.
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler
directives. So
you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6)
Does Delphi
Vinzent Höfler wrote:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
new keywords.
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler directives.
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown compiler
directives. So
you
On 21 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Other compilers will give you warnings about illegal compiler
directives.
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown
compiler directives. So
you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6)
I think at least in this
On 21 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Bad assumption, the only one that matters, Delphi errors on unknown
compiler directives. So
you will have to ifdef anyway. (tested D6)
I think at least in this case GPC also matters, since Florian is also
soliciting feedback on
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want
2006/7/20, Steve Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for
Isn't there a copascal that already has established concurent pascal syntax?
if not, the other wirthian languages look like logical providers?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Isn't there a copascal that already has established concurent pascal syntax?
Yes, there is, but its syntax is very limited AFAICS.
if not, the other wirthian languages look like logical providers?
Ada tasking? Well, too much overkill, I think. ;)
My problem with
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
Florian,
Have you looked at Pascal-FC (a language developped based Pascal/0, I
believe, by Alan Burns)? I've used it to teach multiprogramming, and it
John Coppens wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
Florian,
Have you looked at Pascal-FC (a language developped based Pascal/0, I
believe, by Alan Burns)?
Alan Burns? That's a
Steve Williams wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b: PSingleArray);
var
i: Integer;
begin
{$omp parallel for}
for i := 1 to n - 1 do
b^[i] := (a^[i] + a^[i - 1]) / 2.0;
end;
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:11:49 +0200
Vinzent Höfler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Burns? That's a name which rings a bell. You could have send the
URL, though. ;)
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~burns/pf.html
Hmm, and taking a peek look at the examples, it doesn't really surprise
me,
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++ implementation,
but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a: PSingleArray; b:
Steve Williams wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
Steve Williams wrote:
I would suggest something along the lines of the C/C++
implementation, but using the Pascal form of compiler directives.
Using some of the documented examples in the v2.5 spec:
Example A.1.1:
procedure a1(n: Integer; a:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
There seems to be something in the air.
I had the same idea two weeks ago. Well, to be honest, I had the idea as I
heard of OpenMP 3 years ago, but now
2006/7/17, Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:12:31 +0200
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support.
Right. AFAIK OpenMP is only a standard for C/C++ and Fortran. It's not an
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
Is this similar as polyphinic C# ? (you gave me a link a while ago)
What I'm puzzeled with, usually an API specifies the interface to an
external library, where here it seems a spec
I'am currently thinking about implementing OpenMP support in FPC.
However, there is currently (to my knowledge) no pascal syntax defined
for OpenMp support. Do you think we can find a common syntax to simplify
things for users? I've some ideas how it be done, but I want to hear
other ideas first
45 matches
Mail list logo
