[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Handling "parfor" as "for"
From: |
Ben Abbott |
Subject: |
Re: Handling "parfor" as "for" |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:32:31 -0400 |
On Sep 25, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Mark Everitt wrote:
> Hi all this is a first time post so I hope I'm not making any mistakes.
>
> I use Matlab at work, and due to the ridiculously parallel nature of the
> simulations I'm running, and the large number of cores I have available,
> I use parfor. As I don't have a licence at home, I use octave (v3.2.4 on
> Ubuntu Oneiric) to write and debug.
>
> The issue is that I'm always having to edit between parfor and for to
> keep octave happy. Is there any way of aliasing parfor to for so that I
> don't have to keep doing this? It seems like this would be desirable
> behaviour in any case, perhaps with a warning just so that matlab
> scripts with parfor have a better chance of running in octave, albeit
> with serial for.
>
> Thanks in advance!
I think this is a question for the development community, so I'm moving it to
the developers list.
For those unfamiliar with "parfor" is a parallel for loop.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/distcomp/parfor.html
There are other Matlab commands which may be used to enable parallel
computation.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/distcomp/batch.html
http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/distcomp/spmd.html
Might some of this be parsed by Octave and run on a single thread?
Ben
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for",
Ben Abbott <=
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/27
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso, 2011/09/27
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/28
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/29