RE: [Gomp-discuss] Re: Implementing OpenMP pragmas for the C front end

["Scott Robert Ladd" <scott at coyotegulch dot com>]

Per Bothner wrote
> There are all kinds of "public" standards.

OpenMP is a 5-year-old standard now in its second revision; it is
implemented by most commercial compilers and has wide support in academia.
It provides a cross-platform, cross-language syntax for parallelization, and
is defined in such a way as to be non-intrusive for environments that do not
support threads and processes.

So OpenMP is not something new and untested. Surely the gcc developers can
match the technical acumen of their commercial counterparts?

> "We" only need to be compatible if we make
> a comittment to implementing OpenMP.  I don't
> think we should make any comittment to accepting
> an OpenMP implementation in the offical CVS tree.

I wouldn't expect anyone to make a commitment until the "GOMP" developers
have proven the concept in code. On the other hand, it is short-sighted to
dismiss OpenMP out-of-hand.

> The "official" Gcc line has always been that #pragmas are
> generally a bad idea.  A major reason is that #pragmas
> cannot be created by macros.

And many modern software developers consider #macros to be bad programming
practice. And many people consider language extensions to be bad. The list
goes on and on; gcc today is not the gcc of yesterday or tomorrow.
"Official" lines change.

I assume the "official" stance on gcc can continue to grow as the field of
computer programming evolves.

..Scott

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.