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)
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,
