There's a (much shorter) proposal for a more explicit parallelism
construct at
http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/parallelblock
This is a little more verbose for the simplest case, but makes the
medium-cases that needs work buffers much simpler, and is also more
explicit and difficult to get
On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> There's a (much shorter) proposal for a more explicit parallelism construct
> at
>
> http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/parallelblock
>
> This is a little more verbose for the simplest case, but makes the
> medium-cases that needs work buffers
mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is something that is really
only useful if you can release the GIL *outside* of the loop. So I feel this
is an area where a custom Cython solution is natural, sort
On 5 April 2011 10:34, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is something that is
>>> really
>>> only useful if you can release the GIL *outside* of the loop. So I fee
On 5 April 2011 10:44, mark florisson wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 10:34, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
>>>
>>> On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is something that is
really
only useful if
mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:44:
On 5 April 2011 10:34, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is something that is
really
only useful if you can release the GIL *outside* of th
On 5 April 2011 11:01, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:44:
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 10:34, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
> Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is som
On 04/05/2011 11:01 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:44:
On 5 April 2011 10:34, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 05.04.2011 10:26:
On 5 April 2011 09:21, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Justification for Cython-specific syntax: This is something that is
really
only use
mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
For clarity, I'll add an example:
def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
cdef double s = 0
cdef double tmp = 2
cdef double other = 6.6
with nogil:
for i in prange(x.shape[0]):
# reading 'tmp' makes it firstprivate i
On 5 April 2011 12:51, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
>>
>> For clarity, I'll add an example:
>>
>> def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
>> cdef double s = 0
>> cdef double tmp = 2
>> cdef double other = 6.6
>>
>> with nogil:
>> for i in pran
Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:26:34 +0200, mark florisson wrote:
[clip]
> For clarity, I'll add an example:
[clip]
How about making all the special declarations explicit? The automatic
inference of variables has a problem in that a small change in a part of
the code can have somewhat unintuitive non-local
Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:55:36 +, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
[clip]
> # Assignment to non-private variables causes a compile-time
> # error; this avoids common mistakes, such as forgetting to
> # declare the reduction variable.
> alpha += 42
> a
On 5 April 2011 14:55, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>
> Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:26:34 +0200, mark florisson wrote:
> [clip]
> > For clarity, I'll add an example:
> [clip]
>
> How about making all the special declarations explicit? The automatic
> inference of variables has a problem in that a small change in
On 5 April 2011 15:10, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:55:36 +, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> [clip]
>> # Assignment to non-private variables causes a compile-time
>> # error; this avoids common mistakes, such as forgetting to
>> # declare the reductio
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
>>
>> For clarity, I'll add an example:
>>
>> def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
>> cdef double s = 0
>> cdef double tmp = 2
>> cdef double other = 6.6
>>
>> with nogil:
>> for
On 04/05/2011 04:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
For clarity, I'll add an example:
def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
cdef double s = 0
cdef double tmp = 2
cdef double other = 6.6
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:52 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 5 April 2011 12:51, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
>>>
>>> For clarity, I'll add an example:
>>>
>>> def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
>>> cdef double s = 0
>>> cdef double tmp = 2
>>> cdef
On 04/05/2011 04:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/05/2011 04:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Behnel
wrote:
mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
For clarity, I'll add an example:
def f(np.ndarray[double] x, double alpha):
cdef double s = 0
c
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:26:34 +0200, mark florisson wrote:
> [clip]
>> For clarity, I'll add an example:
> [clip]
>
> How about making all the special declarations explicit? The automatic
> inference of variables has a problem in that a small cha
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 04:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2011 04:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Behnel
>>> wrote:
mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:26:
>
> For clari
On 04/05/2011 05:26 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 04/05/2011 04:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/05/2011 04:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Stefan Behnel
wrote:
mark florisson, 04.04.2011 21:
On 5 April 2011 18:32, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 05:26 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/05/2011 04:58 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 04/05/2011 04:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot
of the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical
knowledge -> automatically inferred
ii) As an advanced feature, unsafe cases that requi
On 04/05/2011 10:29 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I've done a pretty major revision to the prange CEP, bringing in a lot
of the feedback.
Thread-private variables are now split in two cases:
i) The safe cases, which really require very little technical
knowledge -> automatically inferred
24 matches
Mail list logo
