On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 11:03, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> nested prange loops seem to be a common gotcha for users. I can't say if
> there is ever a reason to do this, but at least I can't think of any.
Unless you make nested prange() emit the following C code:
#pragma omp parallel for collapse(2)
Hi,
nested prange loops seem to be a common gotcha for users. I can't say if
there is ever a reason to do this, but at least I can't think of any. For
me, this sounds like we should turn it into a compile time error – unless
someone can think of a use case? Even in that case, I'd still emit a
Ok, great. Indeed, there is a bug in gcc 4.5, which is fixed I believe
in 4.6. For the OpenMP backend that's not such a big issue, as it's
likely not very useful anyway.
On 26 November 2011 18:35, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I'm all for allowing it at the Cython level even though we can't emit
> co
I'm all for allowing it at the Cython level even though we can't emit
code for it at the C level (due to C compiler bugs, right?)
- Robert
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:12 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> I think we should allow nested prange()s, although it won't invoke
> nested OpenMP parallelism now,
I think we should allow nested prange()s, although it won't invoke
nested OpenMP parallelism now, it still specifies that iterations are
independent which can be useful for optimizations now (e.g. collapsing
two loops into one) and in the future with other backends. Any
thoughts or objections?
