On 14 October 2011 21:07, mark florisson wrote:
> On 14 October 2011 19:31, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
> I ultimately feel things like that is more important than 100% coverage of
> the OpenMP standard. Of course, OpenMP is a lo
On 14 October 2011 19:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
I ultimately feel things like that is more important than 100% coverage of
the OpenMP standard. Of course, OpenMP is a lot lower-hanging fruit.
>>>
>>> +1 Prange handles the (cors
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
>>> I ultimately feel things like that is more important than 100% coverage of
>>> the OpenMP standard. Of course, OpenMP is a lot lower-hanging fruit.
>>
>> +1 Prange handles the (corse-grained) SIMD case nicely, and a
>> task/futures model b
On 14 October 2011 16:18, mark florisson wrote:
> On 14 October 2011 14:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started working on better malloc() support and wrote this code as a test
>> to get going:
>>
>> """
>> cimport cython
>>
>> def test_malloc(int n):
>> with cython.malloc(n*sizeof(int
On 14 October 2011 14:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started working on better malloc() support and wrote this code as a test
> to get going:
>
> """
> cimport cython
>
> def test_malloc(int n):
> with cython.malloc(n*sizeof(int)) as m:
> for i in range(n):
> m[i] = i
>
Hi,
I started working on better malloc() support and wrote this code as a test
to get going:
"""
cimport cython
def test_malloc(int n):
with cython.malloc(n*sizeof(int)) as m:
for i in range(n):
m[i] = i
l = [ m[i] for i in range(n) ]
return l
"""
Now, whe
