Re: [Gomp-discuss] Work in progress ....

[Biagio Lucini]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pop Sébastian wrote:

> Whoups,
> I forgot the end of the sentence:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:47:12AM +0200, Pop Sébastian wrote:
> > #pragma omp parallel shared (j, sum) private (i) schedule (runtime)
> >
> > Would it be transformed into
> > __builtin_omp_parallel (shared (j, sum), private (i), schedule (runtime));
>
> or into:
>
> __builtin_omp_parallel (__builtin_omp_shared (j, sum), \
> __builtin_omp_private (i), __builtin_omp_schedule (runtime));
>
>
>

Hi Sebastian - Off hand I prefere the second option: this would allow us
to recicle some builtins for e.g.

#pragma omp parallel for

(which are almost the same as for parallel).

Whatever we choose, an important step would be to check that the clauses
are correct. E.g.

#pragma omp for shared(i) /*wrong clause for omp for */

so we could just use what we (you) believe is the most convenient way for
performing those checks. Unless it is more convenient to check first and
then transform... This I don't know.

Biagio