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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,99210dd26e04d959
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:29:16 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:29:02 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Loops and parallel execution
In-Reply-To: <4d3eeef7$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1101260626530.5568@WHIRLWIND>
References: <4d3eeef7$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (WNT 1167 2008-08-23)
X-X-Sender: pcc09070@vtc.vsc.edu@webmail.vtc.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-mWoqvdv7nWksrN94tXwrEL16lXnKQCdihJCq5CqEHDGBAwRHMJiBgUscOZ/FZsqaevsW2zh5f1CM/T6!ihEhgQHkgNniWuDYKohnbbucsJIXrSbc6GMP83A2sveCa/XUuC1G2UjfT5SLD7f1B8AUOwJnUg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1911
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17682
Date: 2011-01-26T06:29:02-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> A quick idea.  Assume that some subprogram Op from package P
> is reentrant (and does not depend on global state). Then,
>
> with P;
> ...
>   for K in all First .. Last loop
>       P.Op (K);
>   end loop;
>
> should have the effect of the following being permitted:
>
> (a) to pick K from  First .. Last  in any order
>
> (b) to execute P (J) in parallel with P (K) for J, K from
> First .. Last

I've often wondered what it would take to support OpenMP (or something like 
it) in Ada. The advantage with such an approach is that OpenMP is well 
documented and widely used and understood. Right now the OpenMP standard 
only supports C (and C++?) and Fortran. Why not Ada?

Peter