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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5164ccc41905b2d0 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.87.2 with SMTP id u2mr636442qal.4.1362705339351; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.120.67 with SMTP id la3mr23061qeb.12.1362705339337; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:15:39 -0800 (PST) Path: o5ni47qas.0!nntp.google.com!dd2no8134102qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:15:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 References: <87k3pjht79.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3e01ac49-4427-4f50-8577-8edab7e539a6@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada and OpenMP From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:15:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-03-07T17:15:39-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, March 7, 2013 4:42:59 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote: >=20 > Pragmas, IMHO, are the worst way to do anything. Compiler writers tend to= =20 > use them because they can do so without appearing to modify the language,= =20 > but it's all an illusion: the program probably won't work right without t= he=20 > pragma, so you're still locked into that particular vendor. Might as well= =20 > have done it right in the first place (and make a proposal to the ARG,=20 > backed with practice, so it can get done right in the next version of Ada= ). I'm not sure I totally agree with your sentiment; IIRC, Pragmas in Ada were= supposed to be parentheticals to the compiler that were not essential to p= rogram correctness -- such as Optimize or the source-printing pragma Page. That sentiment was thwarted with the inclusion of representation pragmas. -= - However, the Ada specification *does* allow for implementation-defined pr= agmas. It seems to me that such would be ideal for experimental or compiler= -specific code-generation. The previous poster's "Pragma OMP(...)" is an ex= cellent example (though I think the FOR_LOOP parameter is stupid, the featu= re [OMP] should be turned on/off as needed, letting the compiler determine = the optimal technique to use. {A program written in such a way would be cor= rect even if the code were ported to a non-OMP compiler, provided the under= lying algorithm was correct.}