[ODE] Ideas for threading ODE...

[Alen Ladavac]

Actually, you can make OpenMP do explicite parallelization. E.g. by 
specifying that you want 2 threads and telling that a particular for loop 
needs to be parallelized, you will essentially make it do each iteration of 
the loop on the other thread (more or less...). But I have to agree I too 
prefer explicit threading over OpenMP. OpenMP is a wrapper after all.

Alen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bram Stolk" <bram at sara.nl>
To: "ode" <ode at q12.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 07:00
Subject: Re: [ODE] Ideas for threading ODE...


> Tyler Streeter wrote:
>
>>Can you explain this statement?  Why is it better to roll your own
>>using pthreads?  I would think OpenMP is better since it is simpler to
>>use and works on more platforms.
>>
>>
>
> I may be wrong, as I have not used OpenMP myself, but:
> I thought that OpenMP is implicit parallelisation?
> pthread is explicit.
>
> Thus: with OpenMP you have to *hope* that the compiler
> can find some concurrency in the sections that you mark.
> Maybe the compiler can parallellise, yet maybe it can't.
>
> With pthreads you explicitly decide what tasks to do
> concurrently.
>
> And as allways... even the smartest compilers are no match
> for a smart programmer.
>
> So with pthread you do more of the work yourself, but have
> better control on how threads are created/used, etc, wrt to
> OpenMP.
>
> But then again, I've only used pthreads myself, so I may be
> off here.
>
>  bram
>
>>Tyler
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ODE mailing list
>>ODE at q12.org
>>http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>