Comments on: Breaking Out of Loops in OpenMP http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/ A Blog on Parallel Programming and Concurrency by Michael Suess Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:16:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: raghavg http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/comment-page-1/#comment-98907 raghavg Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:23:44 +0000 http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/#comment-98907 how to just resolve the part of "return 0" thing inside open mp parallel region.......... how to just resolve the part of “return 0″ thing inside open mp
parallel region……….

]]> By: Carles (Spain) http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/comment-page-1/#comment-98638 Carles (Spain) Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:14:57 +0000 http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/#comment-98638 Thank you for this post! I've solve a problem with a for loop within a 'return' inside. Thanks! Thank you for this post! I’ve solve a problem with a for loop within a ‘return’ inside. Thanks!

]]> By: Michael Suess http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/comment-page-1/#comment-16019 Michael Suess Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:16:07 +0000 http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/#comment-16019 @Sanjiv: thanks for the clarification, maybe that decision should be revised some time in the future, as this is by far not the first time I encounter a problem that could be solved with a directive like that... @Santiago: I did not change that to atomic, because the original snippet used critical and (since its just a snippet) I cannot know if n is not modified elsewhere. Besides that, I only wanted to change as little as possible to get my point across. You are right, though, there is a good chance that atomic is the more optimal solution here... @Sanjiv: thanks for the clarification, maybe that decision should be revised some time in the future, as this is by far not the first time I encounter a problem that could be solved with a directive like that…

@Santiago: I did not change that to atomic, because the original snippet used critical and (since its just a snippet) I cannot know if n is not modified elsewhere. Besides that, I only wanted to change as little as possible to get my point across. You are right, though, there is a good chance that atomic is the more optimal solution here…

]]> By: Santiago http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/comment-page-1/#comment-15938 Santiago Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:25:18 +0000 http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/#comment-15938 Just an optimization... why instead of [code] #pragma omp critical(UpdateProgress) ++n; [/code] you don't do better [code] #pragma omp atomic ++n; [/code] ??? Just an optimization... why instead of

PLAIN TEXT
CODE:
  1. #pragma omp critical(UpdateProgress)
  2. ++n;

you don't do better

PLAIN TEXT
CODE:
  1. #pragma omp atomic
  2. ++n;

???

]]> By: Sanjiv Shah http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/comment-page-1/#comment-15927 Sanjiv Shah Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:20:47 +0000 http://www.thinkingparallel.com/2007/06/29/breaking-out-of-loops-in-openmp/#comment-15927 Hi Michael, This was called the "PDONE" directive in the original ASCI X3H5 specification, and the DONE directive in the original OpenMP 1.0 effort. The committee rejected it on the grounds that it was simple enough for the user to do, as you show above. Yes, we pushed for it, but there wasn't enough support for it. Sanjiv Hi Michael,

This was called the "PDONE" directive in the original ASCI X3H5 specification, and the DONE directive in the original OpenMP 1.0 effort. The committee rejected it on the grounds that it was simple enough for the user to do, as you show above.

Yes, we pushed for it, but there wasn't enough support for it.

Sanjiv

]]>