search for: balelbach

...require this of a conforming implementation. It's going to be the source of so many problems otherwise On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/12/2017 11:00 AM, Scott Smith wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Bryce Lelbach <balelbach at lbl.gov> wrote: > >> * I am concerned that nested parallel algorithms will prove to be a >> big implementation burden for GPU and accelerator architectures. >> > > Can't they fall back on serial execution? I thought the executor is a > hint, not a requiremen...

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Bryce Lelbach <balelbach at lbl.gov> wrote: > * I am concerned that nested parallel algorithms will prove to be a > big implementation burden for GPU and accelerator architectures. > Can't they fall back on serial execution? I thought the executor is a hint, not a requirement (certainly the standard does...

...differently or simply not consider the issue of recursive parallelism at all and end up with an implementation that doesn't support it (not that unlikely considering it went 1.5 years through committee as you said and the topic never came up). On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:25 AM Bryce Lelbach <balelbach at lbl.gov> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> > wrote: > > Even without a concrete use case, I agree that it's absolutely imperative > > for the standard to require this of a conforming implementation. It's > goin...

On May 10, 2017 9:14 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: On 05/10/2017 10:36 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: It's hard to say. By definition it appears undefined (in the sense that the TS literally does not define it), but on the other hand it is a TS and this issue would (hopefully) come up and be specified before it made it to standardization. You mean