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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1e5c102037393131 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) Subject: Re: Assertions Date: 1999/05/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 481484951 References: <3736D243.1EEBF1AB@globalnet.co.uk> <3736F549.E3DDCDEB@pwfl.com> <7h83lc$rd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3739CECA.6A49865B@averstar.com> <1999May12.163911.1@eisner.decus.org> <373c862b@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <3742eba5@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <7i7ei9$93v$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37484098@eeyore.callnetuk.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.rmit.edu.au X-Trace: emu.cs.rmit.edu.au 927548956 21651 131.170.66.211 (24 May 1999 12:29:16 GMT) Organization: RMIT NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 1999 12:29:16 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-24T12:29:16+00:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts wrote: " pragma Parallel_Loop [(Loop_Name)]; This pragma is allowed anywhere a statement is allowed, but must apply to loop. With no parameter, this pragma applies to the innermost enclosing loop statement; otherwise this pragma applies to loop whose name is Loop_Name. The loop must have an iteration scheme of the 'for' variety, and this iteration scheme must not include the reserved word 'reverse'." This sounds good, but i really know next to nothing about this area. I would certainly recommend anyone to read up on HPF (High Performance Fortran) to get an idea on the issues that have been examined on this topic. I -think- from previous postings that there are some features in Ada that may prevent the level of parallelisation (sp?) that Fortran can achieve (specifically exceptions (and probably finalisation and Async abort)). Dale