Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Is Nearing OpenMP Support In LLVM/Clang

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel Is Nearing OpenMP Support In LLVM/Clang

    Phoronix: Intel Is Nearing OpenMP Support In LLVM/Clang

    At the recent European LLVM meeting in Paris, Andrey Bokhanko and Alexey Bataev of Intel covered their work on supporting OpenMP within LLVM...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM2NjE

  • #2
    3-clause BSD

    Too bad it is 3-clause BSD instead of the more modern 2-clause BSD.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Too bad it is 3-clause BSD instead of the more modern 2-clause BSD.
      Why, do you plan to advertize your own fork with Intel's name?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
        Why, do you plan to advertize your own fork with Intel's name?
        No, but I tend to prefer licenses to be liberal.

        Before there were 4-clause BSD license, but then everyone moved to 3-clause BSD, and now everyone have moved to 2-clause BSD or the similar but simpler ISC license.

        Comment


        • #5
          Didn't people in some previous thread say that the LLVM dudes do not want to provide OpenMP at all because it doesn't scale and they instead want to work on an alternative? Turns out this was just a bunch of nonsense.

          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          No, but I tend to prefer licenses to be liberal.

          Before there were 4-clause BSD license, but then everyone moved to 3-clause BSD, and now everyone have moved to 2-clause BSD or the similar but simpler ISC license.
          LOL. Just, LOL.
          Last edited by RealNC; 05-07-2013, 09:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CthuIhux
            You mean more proprietary friendly, BSD lunatic?
            No, I am not a "BSD lunatic", whatever that means.
            I don't even use any of the BSD operating systems, I use Linux.
            Also, I prefer the ISC License over the 2-clause BSD license.

            I don't mean "more proprietary friendly", I mean simpler and less legalese.
            Less text, less words, less legal mumbo jumbo.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CthuIhux
              Why not just release the code with no license and no copyright.
              Because that is impossible. This comment clearly shows that you have no understanding of the topic at all. Not that I have expected something different from a troll that accuses OpenBSD developers to be murderers and terrorists.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                Didn't people in some previous thread say that the LLVM dudes do not want to provide OpenMP at all because it doesn't scale and they instead want to work on an alternative? Turns out this was just a bunch of nonsense.
                One of the reasons LLVM has taken off like wildfire is that it easy to modify and easy to use as the basis for research projects, and there are plenty of such projects, both in companies and at universities.

                Point is: to the extent that there are "LLVM dudes" who have their own opinions about the best way to handle parallelism, that does not prevent anyone else from doing what they like to add OpenMP to the code.
                And, based on previous history (and in spite of whatever "Apple is the spawn of satan" theories people may claim), once the patches appear to be stable and unproblematic, they'll probably be rolled into the mainline.

                I imagine at some point, once more immediately pressing matters have been resolved, we'll see Apple's future vision for parallelism (which probably consists of syntactic changes to Objective-C, rather than littering the code with #pragmas) rolled into LLVM, and that's where Apple's going to concentrate the time of its people.
                But if Intel want to go ahead with OpenMP, why not? It's no different from IBM adding SystemZ support, or some PhD student adding support for a fancy new optimization he's invented.

                Comment

                Working...
                X