From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.25.86.130 with SMTP id k124mr2364780lfb.6.1466476830467;
        Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.27.242 with SMTP id v47mr581380otv.16.1466476830359;
 Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!oe3no6575633lbb.1!news-out.google.com!di11ni13478lbb.1!nntp.google.com!w10no4776033lbo.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <nk19hh$o33$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2601:191:8202:8510:5985:2c17:9409:aa9c;
 posting-account=fdRd8woAAADTIlxCu9FgvDrUK4wPzvy3
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:191:8202:8510:5985:2c17:9409:aa9c
References: <58b78af5-28d8-4029-8804-598b2b63013c@googlegroups.com>
 <dsim6eF91ubU1@mid.individual.net> <nk19hh$o33$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0b853aa8-e542-4f10-bd55-c4e76bb7bf75@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Prototype for a user threading library in Ada
From: rieachus@comcast.net
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 02:40:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30849
Date: 2016-06-20T19:40:30-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-4, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2016-06-17 18:18, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>=20
> My take on this problematic is that there cannot exist a solution=20
> implemented at the library level. All these frameworks maybe fun (for=20
> the developer) but useless (horror for the end user) when the key=20
> problem is not solved. That is, the control-flow state (as you said) and=
=20
> the stack of the local objects both preserved between scheduling points.=
=20
> This can be done IMO only at the language level as co-routines,=20
> non-preemptive, cooperative, user-scheduled tasks, call it as you wish.

I've been trying to understand not just the code, but the goal.  I decided =
to start from a different perspective.  What if I had a problem and wanted =
to distribute the solution across thousands of processors?  Since I tend to=
 bang my head against NP-hard or NP-complete problems, I would want a progr=
am structure that allowed me to start up at least one (Ada) task per proces=
sor, with enough data to complete, and for the job creation software to use=
 a very wide tree.  A similar reverse tree could be used to collect results=
 if needed.

But to do any of this, I head for the distributed systems annex.  It might =
be nice to have a simple example of how to do that on top of MPI:  https://=
computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/mpi/#MPI2-3 (To be honest, using the C or Fort=
ran bindings is what I have done...)