in reply to RFC: Implicit Parallelization Pragma
hardburn,
You didn't mention it, so I will ask. Does your proposed threadsafe pragma make any guarantees concerning the finishing order? In your example
my @str_lengths = map { length } @strs;
There is no reason not to get the lengths in parallel, but there certainly might be a reason to want/expect the results come out in the same order they went in (FIFO).
You didn't mention it, so I will ask. Does your proposed threadsafe pragma make any guarantees concerning the finishing order? In your example
my @str_lengths = map { length } @strs;
There is no reason not to get the lengths in parallel, but there certainly might be a reason to want/expect the results come out in the same order they went in (FIFO).
Cheers - L~R
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: RFC: Implicit Parallelization Pragma
by hardburn (Abbot) on Jan 25, 2005 at 17:47 UTC | |
by Limbic~Region (Chancellor) on Jan 25, 2005 at 18:09 UTC | |
by hardburn (Abbot) on Jan 26, 2005 at 14:22 UTC |
In Section
Meditations