From: Cristianno Martins (cristiannomartins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-02 16:50:40
first of all, thank you for comments.
That is certainly an interesting project. When you submit your GSoC
> application, please identify exactly which library you plan to
> parallelize with OpenMP, and which parts of that library you will
> - Doug
Well, I enumerated three libraries that I could parallelize with OpenMP in
the project. Therefore, I did't specify how I'd parallelize them, because
(in the project) one of the tasks to be done after choose a library is to
identify the bottlenecks. So, I thought I should do this at that moment.
Furthermore, if I have opportunity to parallelize more than three libraries,
it'll be necessary to do this step for the others libraries; so, why mustn't
I do it for all of them?
> Just a quick question. Wouldn't be TBB the better choice instead of
> > OpenMP?
> I can see good reasons for both options. TBB will make it easier to
> implement task-oriented parallel algorithms, but it brings with it a
> dependency on a non-Boost library. OpenMP is reasonably good at data
> parallelism (and can require fewer changes to algorithms where it
> applies), and depends on features available in many compilers, but it
> isn't as widely applicable as TBB. I think you choice will be dictated
> mainly by the library you choose, and how you think you will need to
> parallelize that library.
> - Doug
The use of TBB is a really good idea, so I could parallelize each chosen
library in Boost with the best library to that case (between OpenMP and
TBB). What do you think about it?
-- Cristianno Martins Mastering in Computer Science State University of Campinas cristianno.martins_at_[hidden] skype: cristiannomartins gTalk: cristiannomartins msn: cristiannomartins_at_[hidden] (rarely used)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk