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: 103376,99210dd26e04d959
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Loops and parallel execution
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ihsth1$igr$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <ihq5br$ir9$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: J4HSNf9Eqj44wTz1J3b8lQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16756
Date: 2011-01-27T23:01:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Finally, like Dmitry, I'm skeptical about fine-grained parallelism buying
> much. Unless there is specific architectural support (something that doesn't
> exist in commonly used processors -- and especially in commonly used target
> OSes/RTOSes), the management overhead will kill any savings on "small"

  What about the SIMD (vector) instructions in Intel CPUs?  Or is that
better done by simply calling their optimized, CPU capability detecting,
libraries?