Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Intel Is Nearing OpenMP Support In LLVM/Clang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,659

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,196

    Default 3-clause BSD :(

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    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.

    Quote 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 at 10:48 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CthuIhux View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CthuIhux View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •