Re: Ada parallelism (was: Re: Threadpool with priority version 1.1 ...)

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

Georg Bauhaus expounded in news:4baa5987$0$6762$9b4e6d93
@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:

> Warren schrieb:
>> Georg Bauhaus expounded in news:4baa27f2$0$6770$9b4e6d93
>> @newsspool3.arcor-online.net:
>> 
>>> Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:
>>>>  how the proposed algorithms map onto the
>>>> Ada tasking model, especially taking into account that Ada tasking
>>>> primitives are higher level, than ones known in other languages.
> 
>>> As a side note: it seems anything but easy to explain
>>> the idea of a concurrent language, not a library, and
>>> not CAS things either, as the means to support the programmer
>>> who wishes to express concurrency.
>>> Concurrency is not seen as one of the modes of expression
>>> in language X. Rather, concurrency is seen as an effect
>>> of interweaving concurrency primitives and some algorithm.
>>>
>>> What can one do about this?
>> 
>> I thought the Cilk project was rather interesting in
>> their attempt to make C (and C++) more parallel
>> to take advantage of multi-core cpus. But the language 
>> still requires that the programmer program the parallel 
>> aspects of the code with some simple language enhancements.
>> 
>> As cores eventually move to 128+-way cores, this needs
>> to change to take full advantage of shortened elapsed
>> times, obviously.  I think this might require a radical
>> new high-level language to do it.  
> 
> Or efficient multicore Ada will have to go radically back to
> the roots ;-)  

I do believe that an Ada compiler probably has enough 
internal info to manage something along this line. Some
work would also have to be done to deal with explicitly
coded tasking.

> How did they achieve efficient execution on
> massively parallel processors? HPF? Occam? What do Sisal
> implementations do?

I don't know about them, but if any of them are "interpreted",
then there would be execution time semantics possible.

Warren