Re: [gomp] Challenges in Implementing OpenMP

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I apologize in advance for what might look like an unsolicited ad.
> However, the topic raised by Scott concerns GCC, C++ and a domain I'm
> interested in.  All three reasons I feel concerned :-)

I was really hoping this wouldn't degenerate, like past discussions, 
into a debate over the merits of OpenMP and its syntax. I am more than 
willing to agree that there may be other (and even better) alternatives; 
however, the issue here is how best to implement OpenMP.

OpenMP is a widely-recognized industry standard implemented successfully 
by almost every commercial C, C++, and Fortran compiler (Microsoft is 
adding it to Visual C++ in the next major release.) There exists a 
significant body of OpenMP knowledge and code.

> The view here at TAMU, is slightly different.  Instead of augmenting
> the language with CPP directives and whatnot that the programmer has
> to manually keep track of, we prefer to realy on higher level
> abstractions.  That is the approach taken and implemented by STAPL
>
>   http://parasol.tamu.edu/compilers/research/STAPL/

I've worked a bit with STAPL, but it is a C++-only solution.

> There is another project initiated by Bjarne Stroustrup, which I know
> more about (certainly more than STAPL :-)), called "The Pivot".

Again, it is C++ only.

> So, you can see my bias:  Keep the compiler simple, delegate
> domain-specific semantics to domain-specific tools;  Keep the
> abstraction high level, and delegate byte fiddling to the computer
> scientists and equations to physisists/numericists.

Your bias is a focus only on C++. I write 70% of my code in C++, so I 
sympathize. However, I also work with C and Fortran developers, and 
OpenMP is the solution in their domains.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com