search for: exponentionali

> My $0.02 worth on this topic .. and again |0.02 of mein :-) > However, I find it unreasonable to expect LLVM to provide > any features in this area. In order to do anything meaningful, > LLVM would have to have some kind of awareness of networks > (typically an operating system concern). > That seems at odds with the "low level" principles of LLVM. When I

My $0.02 worth on this topic .. I'm also interested in distributed computing as XPL/XPS will support it. However, I find it unreasonable to expect LLVM to provide any features in this area. In order to do anything meaningful, LLVM would have to have some kind of awareness of networks (typically an operating system concern). That seems at odds with the "low level" principles of

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 9:37:19 PM, you wrote: > > Well, Chris, let's forget about traditions (finally LLVM is > tradition-breaking thing!). At which level the optimization like i've > meant *should* be implemented?.. Ok, I thought you were concerned about LLVM breaking the _correctness_ of distributed programs, sorry. :)

Hello Valery, I have some comments regarding your thoughts on LLVM support for distributed computing. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >There should be an engine and layer for making dispatching optimizations in run-time. If one CPU is loaded and code is >"parallelizable" why then not to send some part of >calculation to other CPU? This kind of on-fly decision will >be one day

Interesting email address there :) On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:18, =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Valery A.Khamenya=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?= wrote: > For the very beginning think of a host with multiple CPUs. > I could formulate my proposal even for this non-networked > case. On the same machine, LLVM definitely needs to support both symmetric and asymmetric multi-processing. I believe some primitives to