http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-06
22:25:44 UTC ---
Johannes, I lost a bit track of this enhancement PR: what do you think, now
that we are again in Stage 1 in mainline, are there chances we can resolve it
somehow? Is there something I
--- Comment #15 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 09:56
---
There is slowdown, also for large inputs, for the most simple case, namely
filling constant integer values. If assignment is more expensive, thing will
get better. Please try with your application.
--
singler
--- Comment #14 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 09:53
---
Created an attachment (id=19064)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19064&action=view)
Functional patch for parallel fill and fill_n.
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #13 from wuerzner at gmail dot com 2009-11-19 15:47 ---
If you have no speedup, do you recognize any loss of speed due to the
parallelization overhead (for small examples)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #12 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 15:35
---
Remove old email address.
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 15:33
---
Created an attachment (id=19053)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19053&action=view)
Functional patch for parallel fill and fill_n.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #10 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 15:32
---
The new patch is functional. However, for simple cases like setting integers,
I have no speedup (yet).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 02:52 ---
Yes, of course. Just providing the framework, since that was a bit tricky.
I should add all the steps here to the parallel mode docs to make this less
confusing for people trying to experiment.
best,
benjamin
--
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-05 02:33
---
Cool. Now it would be nice to benchmark it a bit, somehow, a version of it with
the actual code not commented out, I mean ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 02:16 ---
Here's how parallel fill would look, based on Johannes patch.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 02:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=18970)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18970&action=view)
patch for parallel fill and fill_n
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #5 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 07:37 ---
I'm investigating the problem. In the meantime, you might want to "abuse"
std::for_each for this task.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #4 from wuerzner at gmail dot com 2009-10-15 15:46 ---
Hi,
has there been any change on the std::fill policy, yet? If yes, in which
version did you integrate the parallel fill?
Many thanks,
Kay
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #3 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-23 11:00 ---
A parallelized std::copy was also suggested.
--
singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
14 matches
Mail list logo
