search for: parallel_utils

I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project, which I am calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a better name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it can be improved. ===================================================== LLVM Parallel Utils Subproject Charter ===================================================== --...

...gt; >> Yours, >> Andrey >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev < >> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project, which I am >> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a better >> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it >> can be improved. >> >> >> ===================================================== >> LLVM Parallel Utils Subproject Charter >&...

I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response.. Let me play devils advocate for a minute 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term than my own selfish benefit) 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > I feel like this thread got a bit stalled. I'd like to pick it up and try to suggest a path forward. > > I don't hear any real objections to the overall idea of having an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtimes and support libraries. I think we should get that created. I think it