From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22328 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2008 19:09:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 22316 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2008 19:09:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (HELO yw-out-1718.google.com) (74.125.46.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:09:02 +0000 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so1008382ywk.48 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.204.19 with SMTP id b19mr6599055ybg.63.1208200133439; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.74.15 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <63c059b10804141208u7b59b4camdc322ec10c97141d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:09:00 -0000 From: "Andrew W. Steiner" To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jochen_K=FCpper?=" Subject: Re: OpenMP GSL Cc: "GSL Discuss Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <5644665F-AAC2-469C-920D-6B13DBE87085@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <5644665F-AAC2-469C-920D-6B13DBE87085@googlemail.com> Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q2/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 Exciting thought, but I'd lean towards a separate package. In any case "parallelization of GSL" is kind of a loaded term. It's not clear to me that many of the routines presented in GSL are easily "parallelizable" per se? On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Jochen K=FCpper wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering whether there are any plans for the parallelization of G= SL? > > For example, I found this article on "Parallelization of GSL: Architectu= re, > Interfaces, and Programming Models" form 2004: > > https://commerce.metapress.com/content/jtp50vjc1e3gwane/resource-secured/= ?target=3Dfulltext.pdf&sid=3Dmedqeqrui2yyng45okahx345&sh=3Dwww.springerlink= .com > > I also found a message by Brian Gough from 2002 stating that it would not > fit the design of GSL (Message-ID: <15656.48877.30970.694792@debian>). > > Would there be any objections if one started to a few include OpenMP > directives in the code? They would not at all interfere with normal usage= of > GSL in single-threaded calculations. If they should even be optional for = the > use of GSL in OpenMP calculations, they could be flagged by a run-time or > compile-time (preferred for performance) switch. > > Thoughts? > > Greetings, > Jochen > -- > Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit > http://www.Jochen-Kuepper.de > Libert=E9, =C9galit=E9, Fraternit=E9 GnuPG key: CC1B0B= 4D > Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll > > >