On 10/21/2011 09:31 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 21 October 2011 18:43, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 02:51 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 10:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 11:13 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre S
On 21 October 2011 18:43, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 02:51 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 20 October 2011 10:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2011 11:13 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 02:51 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 10:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 11:13 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Meta: I've been meaning to respond to this thread, but can't find the
time.
What's the
On 20 October 2011 10:35, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 11:13 AM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Meta: I've been meaning to respond to this thread, but can't find the
>>> time.
>>> What's the time-frame for implementing
On 10/20/2011 11:13 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Meta: I've been meaning to respond to this thread, but can't find the time.
What's the time-frame for implementing this? If it's hypothetical at the
moment and just is a question of getting thin
On 20 October 2011 09:42, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> Meta: I've been meaning to respond to this thread, but can't find the time.
> What's the time-frame for implementing this? If it's hypothetical at the
> moment and just is a question of getting things spec-ed, one could perhaps
> look at disc
Meta: I've been meaning to respond to this thread, but can't find the
time. What's the time-frame for implementing this? If it's hypothetical
at the moment and just is a question of getting things spec-ed, one
could perhaps look at discussing it at the next Cython workshop, or
perhaps a Skype c
On 19 October 2011 06:01, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM, 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
On 19 October 2011 19:19, mark florisson wrote:
> On 19 October 2011 06:01, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 14 October 2011 19:31, Robert Bradshaw
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
>>>
On 19 October 2011 06:01, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM, 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
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM, 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
On 12 October 2011 10:24, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 11:08 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>>
>>> I wouldn't resist a builtin "channel" type in Cython (since we don't have
>>> full templating/generics, it would be the only wa
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 12 October 2011 10:08, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I'm less sure about single, since making it a function indicates one
could
use it in other contexts and the whole thin
On 12 October 2011 09:36, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
>>
On 12 October 2011 10:20, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 10:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrot
On 10/12/2011 11:08 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
I wouldn't resist a builtin "channel" type in Cython (since we don't have
full templating/generics, it would be the only way of sending typed data
conveniently?).
zeromq seems to be a nice leve
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 10:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wr
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> I'm less sure about single, since making it a function indicates one
>>> could
>>> use it in other contexts and the whole thing becomes too magic (since
>>> it's
>>> tied to the positi
On 10/12/2011 10:36 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
with parallel.critical():
this sec
On 10/12/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
I thin
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:12 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 22:27, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 9 October 2011 21:48, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:01 PM, mark florisson
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 9 October 2011 19:54, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
>> >>> Personally, I thi
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
>>> I think we should introduce some n
On 9 October 2011 22:27, mark florisson wrote:
>
> On 9 October 2011 21:48, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:01 PM, mark florisson
> > wrote:
> >> On 9 October 2011 19:54, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
> >>> Personally, I think I'd prefer context managers as a very
> >>> readable way to d
On 9 October 2011 21:48, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:01 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 19:54, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
>>> Personally, I think I'd prefer context managers as a very
>>> readable way to deal with parallelism
>>
>> Yeah it makes a lot of sense for mu
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:01 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 19:54, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
>> Personally, I think I'd prefer context managers as a very
>> readable way to deal with parallelism
>
> Yeah it makes a lot of sense for mutual exclusion, but 'master' really
> means "only the m
On 9 October 2011 19:54, Jon Olav Vik wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
with parallel.single():
same as master, except any thread may do the execution
An optional keyword argument 'nowait' specifies whether there will be a
barrier at t
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>>> with parallel.single():
>>> same as master, except any thread may do the execution
>>>
>>> An optional keyword argument 'nowait' specifies whether there will be a
>>> barrier at the end. The default is to wait.
>
> I like
>
> if paral
On 9 October 2011 14:39, mark florisson wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 14:30, mark florisson wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 13:57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>
On 9 October 2011 14:30, mark florisson wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 13:57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.paral
On 9 October 2011 13:57, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
>>> I think we should introduce some new feat
On 9 October 2011 13:18, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
>> I think we should introduce some new features. I propose the following,
>
> Great!!
>
> I only have ti
On 10/09/2011 02:18 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
I think we should introduce some new features. I propose the following,
Great!!
I only have time for a very short fe
On 10/09/2011 02:11 PM, mark florisson wrote:
Hey,
So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features,
I think we should introduce some new features. I propose the following,
Great!!
I only have time for a very short feedback now, perhaps more will follow.
assume parall
Hey,
So far people have been enthusiastic about the cython.parallel features, I
think we should introduce some new features. I propose the following, assume
parallel has been imported from cython:
with parallel.master():
this is executed in the master thread in a parallel (non-prange) section
37 matches
Mail list logo
