Search found 12 matches

by aduran
Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:56 pm
Forum: OpenMP 4.0 Public Review Release Candidates
Topic: linear clause issues
Replies: 8
Views: 28825

Re: linear clause issues

Just to double check, if linear clause is applied to variable with pointer type, is the actual linear step linear-step * sizeof (*ptr), or just linear-step? Say for int *ptr; linear(ptr : 4) is in Nth iteration ptr actually ptr + N * 4 or (int *) (((char *) ptr) + N * 4) ? The increment as in the b...
by aduran
Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:52 pm
Forum: OpenMP 4.0 Public Review Release Candidates
Topic: linear clause issues
Replies: 8
Views: 28825

Re: linear clause issues

should set original list item i to 16, not 15 (i.e. value from last iteration after performing the IV increment). should assign to original i 16 and to original j 14. Also, on p124 it doesn't have exceptions for {,parallel }{,for }simd iteration variables, is that intentional that given those don't...
by aduran
Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:45 pm
Forum: OpenMP 4.0 Public Review Release Candidates
Topic: for simd/do simd constructs
Replies: 1
Views: 10682

Re: for simd/do simd constructs

Shouldn't #pragma omp for simd be listed as a worksharing construct, so that the various restrictions etc. relevant to worksharing constructs? The loop simd construct inherits all the restrictions of the loop construct so it's not necessary to list it there. Assuming the body can be vectorized with...
by aduran
Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:04 pm
Forum: OpenMP 4.0 Public Review Release Candidates
Topic: #pragma omp declare simd
Replies: 3
Views: 17063

Re: #pragma omp declare simd

For the first question, the directive is intended to be applied to only one function declaration. For the second, the syntax would be: #pragma omp declare simd template <int N> int foo (int); For the third one, I guess right now it reads as you say but as you say we might want to allow an empty exce...
by aduran
Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:58 pm
Forum: OpenMP 4.0 Public Review Release Candidates
Topic: #pragma omp declare reduction
Replies: 2
Views: 16955

Re: #pragma omp declare reduction

In 2.12 the draft says: "The visibility and accessibility of this declaration are the same as those of a variable declared at the same point in the program." Does that imply #pragma omp declare reduction is for C++ only allowed in namespace or block scope, not at class scope (because at class scope...
by aduran
Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:55 am
Forum: OpenMP 3.1 API Specifications
Topic: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms
Replies: 6
Views: 30388

Re: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms

jakub wrote: I considered LL/SC architectures to have a full compare and swap mechanism, while it isn't a single instruction, it is possible to write it using multiple instructions.
I personally agree with you that's why I think there's a good possibility it makes to the next release.
by aduran
Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:02 am
Forum: OpenMP 3.1 API Specifications
Topic: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms
Replies: 6
Views: 30388

Re: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms

Which architectures are that? Just curious? Architectures that are based on load-linked/store-conditional instructions (powerpc, arm, mips, ...) do not rely on a compare-an-swap instruction for atomics. Certainly swap semantics can be implemented as well with LL/SC but some people expressed concern...
by aduran
Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:40 am
Forum: OpenMP 3.1 API Specifications
Topic: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms
Replies: 6
Views: 30388

Re: new C/C++ atomic update and capture forms

I see that the C/C++ atomic update and capture forms have changed substantially from the draft (unfortunately there is no atomic swap form, has that been rejected forever or will it be considered for OpenMP 4.0? http://openmp.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1081#p4416 ). The swap form was rejected be...
by aduran
Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:33 am
Forum: OpenMP 3.1 API Specifications
Topic: const qualified static data members in firstprivate clause
Replies: 1
Views: 12141

Re: const qualified static data members in firstprivate clau

Hi Jakub,

We have discussed this and the intent was such that the answer to your first question is YES and to the second one is NO.

We'll put additional wording in the next release to clear these ambiguities. Thanks for pointing it out.
by aduran
Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:23 am
Forum: OpenMP 3.0 API Specifications
Topic: Private clause typos
Replies: 1
Views: 9807

Re: Private clause typos

You're right. Thanks for the catch Nathan.

We'll correct it in the next version.