search for: dimissal

Hi David, Thank you for your comments. Basically, I agree with Hal's answers -- nothing substantial to add to what he already said. As for > Again, I only skimmed the document, but I was left with the question, > "why not just make calls to runtime routines?" Granted, this is the easiest and cheapest way to support OpenMP... that throws away the whole notion of

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: Hi Hal, > As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two > months, one by me > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) This link seems to be broken. I missed your earlier proposal and would like to read it. As with this proposal, I fear any direct parallelization support in LLVM is going to

Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> writes: >> Again, I only skimmed the document, but I was left with the question, >> "why not just make calls to runtime routines?" > > Granted, this is the easiest and cheapest way to support OpenMP... > that throws away the whole notion of "optimizing compilation" and > "front-end / back-end

Dear R-devel, REvolution appear to be offering ParallelR only when bundled with their R Enterprise edition. As such it appears to be non-free and closed source. http://www.revolution-computing.com/products/parallel-r.php Since R is GPL and not LGPL, is this a breach of the GPL ? Below is the "GPL and ParallelR" thread from their R forum. mdowle > It appears that ParallelR