|sequential binary parallelization at run-time firstname.lastname@example.org (Lauren) (2007-10-25)|
|Re: sequential binary parallelization at run-time email@example.com (George Neuner) (2007-10-27)|
|Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation (was Re: se firstname.lastname@example.org (Anton Lokhmotov) (2007-10-28)|
|Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation email@example.com (2007-10-29)|
|Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation firstname.lastname@example.org (2007-10-29)|
|Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation email@example.com (Anton Lokhmotov) (2007-10-31)|
|Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation firstname.lastname@example.org (Lauren) (2007-11-01)|
|Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation email@example.com (George Neuner) (2007-11-01)|
|From:||Anton Lokhmotov <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:41:53 +0000|
|References:||07-10-082 07-10-089 07-10-091 07-10-094 07-10-097|
|Posted-Date:||31 Oct 2007 13:41:05 EDT|
I think the following paper discusses similar ideas to yours (Haskell,
Tim Harris, Satnam Singh. *Feedback directed implicit parallelism
> Nowadays we don't even have the vector processors,
Not quite true: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/236200
> the SIMD units in todays CPUs don't have the same semantics.
...the same as vector assignment statements? But - in your own words -
machines like Cray-1 also didn't have it.
> Additional temporary storage is almost always required to get the desired behavior
> For vector processing, CBVR is mostly an intellectual convenience for
> the programmer rather than a useful execution strategy. It doesn't
> buy you any more than other vector methods.
...what other methods? I think CBV(D)R *is* useful in the age of
parallelism (and that's was the reason for my recalling it).
> As a parameter passing method, CBVR was deprecated because most
> programmers found it confusing.
But today is different because CBV(D)R is *more natural* for *parallel*
programming (I am again alluding to the August discussion on the
semantics of vector assignment statements).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.