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: 103376,1a44c40a66c293f3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.albasani.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: PAR (Was: Embedded languages based on early Ada)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:01:59 -0800
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <ygek5xvms48.fsf_-_@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
References: <1172192349.419694.274670@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<uslcxt1u7.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
	<1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<u649rx29a.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
	<nhn5b4-9b2.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
	<pan.2007.02.24.22.11.44.430179@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	<u7iu68eba.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <es4dl5$ve2$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
	<pan.2007.03.01.11.23.01.229462@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	<113ls6wugt43q$.cwaeexcj166j$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<pan.2007.03.02.11.36.51.700020@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	<1i3drcyut9aaw.isde6utlv6iq.dlg@40tude.net>
	<uvehjjdff.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
	<1c61jqeqo68w$.2irtg70stnsa.dlg@40tude.net>
	<uejo681zf.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.80.141.189
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1173121341 6443 63.80.141.189 (5 Mar 2007 19:02:21
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:02:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oAcKh3o7tQvaxI7wGieVuGQvHH4=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9692
Date: 2007-03-05T11:01:59-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ray Blaak wrote:

> PAR would only be convenience shorthand for writing task bodies
> around each statement.

Wouldn't "pragma Parallelize (Statement_Identifier);" be a more
reasonable way to do this?  As I understand the wish is to tell the
compiler that these statements are a likely target for parallel
execution.

The compilers are of course already allowed to parallelise the
execution of statements, but hinting where it is worthwhile to try
might be more efficient.  Such a pragma will of course introduce a
discussion of whether the result of the parallel execution should be
exactly the same as the result of the sequential execution, or if it
should just be approximately the same.  The effect on a loop will also
need some consideration.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
I'm giving a short talk at Game Developers Conference (Mobile
Game Innovation Hunt) Monday afternoon:
          http://www.gdconf.com/conference/gdcmobile_hunt.htm