Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation

Anton Lokhmotov <al407@cam.ac.uk>
Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:41:53 +0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
sequential binary parallelization at run-time wangli.one@gmail.com (Lauren) (2007-10-25)
Re: sequential binary parallelization at run-time gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-10-27)
Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation (was Re: se al407@cam.ac.uk (Anton Lokhmotov) (2007-10-28)
Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation torbenm@tyr.diku.dk (2007-10-29)
Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation haberg@math.su.se (2007-10-29)
Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation al407@cam.ac.uk (Anton Lokhmotov) (2007-10-31)
Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation wangli.one@gmail.com (Lauren) (2007-11-01)
Re: Unpopular parameter passing mechanisms and parallelisation gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-11-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Anton Lokhmotov <al407@cam.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:41:53 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-10-082 07-10-089 07-10-091 07-10-094 07-10-097
Keywords: storage, design

George,


I think the following paper discusses similar ideas to yours (Haskell,
CBN, micro-threads):
Tim Harris, Satnam Singh. *Feedback directed implicit parallelism
(http://research.microsoft.com/~tharris/papers/2007-fdip.pdf)*
<http://research.microsoft.com/%7Etharris/papers/2007-fdip.pdf> /ICFP,
Oct 2007
/
> 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).


Anton.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.