[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !
From: |
Scott Robert Ladd |
Subject: |
RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted ! |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:55:12 -0500 |
Hi,
> Depending on how big the differences are, we could decide to drop the
> idea of a language independent OpenMP interface. Does anybody know how
> big the OpenMP semantics differences mentioned by Scott really are
> between the specifications for C/C++ and Fortran?
The differences exist in subtle areas. Some examples:
1) For C++, OpenMP allows programmer-controlled scoping of static class
members (something that is not a language feature of Fortran).
2) The default scoping for loop variables is different between C/C++ and
Fortran.
3) C and C++ allow variable declarations at any point; the compiler must
understand this and scope variables accordingly.
4) C++ must account for constructor and destructor calls for private objects
in a parallel region or loop. Fortran 95 does not need to be concerned with
this.
There's more; it's been a long day, and I've probably screwed something up
in that list because I'm pulling it from memory.
Is it possible to create a common subset? Maybe; I'd have to analyze the
differences between Fortran and C++; I certainly suspect Intel uses common
code between their C++ and Fortran compilers.
Before making any absolute pronouncements, I'd want to go over the OpenMP
standards, and take a closer look at what Intel does.
I'm willing to do this in the next few days, if people think it has value.
Or maybe someone else has a handle on these issues already?
> Actually, keeping all of OpenMP in the separate front ends may be the
> better design choice even if the differences are really small. Code for
> parsing/analyzing OpenMP directives is specific to each front end
> anyway, and like Diego suggested, we could introduce new tree codes *in
> the parsers* already, e.g. a "for"-loop following a #pragma OMP for is
> not parsed as just a normal FOR_STMT, but as a PARALLEL_FOR_STMT.
> PARALLEL_FOR_STMT would have to be able to express the semantics of the
> OpenMP directive, but it should not be OpenMP-specific.
This sounds good -- but then, I haven't written a compiler since I was in
college in the 1970s!
> For the front ends, we'd really only need two different OpenMP-aware
> pieces of code: One for Fortran, and the other one shared by C/C++.
>
> The semantics differences would have to be resolved in the front ends,
> and that's the proper place to do it. If there is to be concurrency
> awareness in the tree optimizers, then it should IMHO be independent of
> OpenMP, so that languages that have their own concurrency (Java, Ada
> have been mentioned) may benefit from this infrastructure too.
C++ would need to be a superset of C, due to object
construction/destruction.
..Scott
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, (continued)
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Steven Bosscher, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Lars Segerlund, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Diego Novillo, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Lars Segerlund, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Steven Bosscher, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Lars Segerlund, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Diego Novillo, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Pop Sébastian, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Steven Bosscher, 2003/01/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Diego Novillo, 2003/01/30
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !,
Scott Robert Ladd <=
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Steven Bosscher, 2003/01/31
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Biagio Lucini, 2003/01/31
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Lars Segerlund, 2003/01/31
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Pop Sébastian, 2003/01/31
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Pop Sébastian, 2003/01/29
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Pop Sébastian, 2003/01/29
RE: [Gomp-discuss] Plan ... coments wanted !, Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/01/29