[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec
From: |
Scott Robert Ladd |
Subject: |
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:35:49 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040812) |
Biagio Lucini wrote:
many thanks for your letter and welcome among us. I think we *all* are
interested in moving gomp forward. The problem is that the project has big
pushes when new and enthusiast members like you join it, but they won't last
a forthnight. What we really need is someone who says "look: I'm here, ready
to hack something" or better "I did this and that: what do you think"?
Discussing theoretical proposals so far has brought us nowhere.
Perhaps "new and enthusiastic members" feel ignored and unappreciated.
Several months back, I posted a set of code examples, showing how basic
OpenMP constructs could be realized using several parallelization
models. I asked for comments and suggestions; the result was resounding
silence from this group.
When GOMP began, I delivered an initial boilerplate for the support
library, yet I've received very little feedback from this community.
I could finish much of the support library in a few short weeks -- but
would that really move the project forward? Or would the code languish?
One initial "decision" was to implement for Linux, and then port later
to other architectures. I disagree; in keeping with the principles of
GNU and GCC, OpenMP should be based on an abstract model with
platform-specific implementations. Opinions?
Lacking feedback on the concrete proposals I have made, I can only conclude:
1) No one here is really interested in realizing GOMP
2) My proposals are so awful that they are beyond comment
I'd be more than happy to lead, follow, or get out of the way, if I felt
that any of those paths would move GOMP along. I've tried providing code
and asking for feedback, without receiving much help; I've tried waiting
for others to move ahead, and they have not.
I do not have all the knowledge required to implement OpenMP, nor do I
have the financial resources to devote myself to OpenMP development.
Collaborative design is an iterative process; someone throws out an
idea, others make suggestions, and a design evolves for practical
implementation.
If you expect a fully-realized OpenMP design and implementation, I'm
afraid that isn't going to happen without funding and some group effort.
If you're waiting for someone to "hack something" in their spare
time, you may wait a long time.
..Scott
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
- [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Ross Towle, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Biagio Lucini, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec,
Scott Robert Ladd <=
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Biagio Lucini, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Lars Segerlund, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Diego Novillo, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Lars Segerlund, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/08/26
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Ross Towle, 2004/08/30
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Ross Towle, 2004/08/30
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Lars Segerlund, 2004/08/26
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec, Ross Towle, 2004/08/30