--- Comment #6 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-19 18:51
---
Subject: Re: std::valarray should be annotated with
OpenMP directives
> "bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | (In reply to comment #3)
> | > I suspect that parallelizing for SSE/Altivec
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-03-19 15:23 ---
Subject: Re: std::valarray should be annotated with OpenMP directives
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #3)
| > I suspect that parallelizing for SSE/Altivec might be more
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-03-19 14:03 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I suspect that parallelizing for SSE/Altivec might be more peneficial
> in most cases than for OpenMP -- OpenMP is a 1,000 pounds gorilla.
I certainly agree. The beauty is that one may have bo
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-03-19 12:40 ---
Subject: Re: std::valarray should be annotated with OpenMP directives
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Wolfgang: I agree. We should have also parallelized this for SSE/Altivec a la
| MacS
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-19 11:35 ---
Wolfgang: I agree. We should have also parallelized this for SSE/Altivec a la
MacSTL.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31000
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-28 22:38 ---
Actually they could also slow down the code if the size is small enoguh.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31000
