Re: [Gomp-discuss] CIL representation ...

[Diego Novillo]

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 05:14, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> 
>   I read the CIL doc's, and this sums it up.
>   CIL doesn't have everything needed to represent a parallell program at 
> the abstract level, it got locks and mutexes and non of the dependencies 
> needed for the variables. It's not a graph, it's a bytecode, so I think 
> we can drop it as a format interesting for gomp.
> 
Wait.  Data dependencies are not an IL feature.  That's something that
the compiler deals with separately.  The questions you need to answer
are:

(1) Can we represent parallelism?  If you can represent control
parallelism (think fork/join) and data parallelism (think parallel
loops), then that's enough to get started.

(2) Can we represent synchronization?  Here you don't really need
language constructs.  If you have library calls for mutex locking,
barriers, events and/or semaphores then you're set.  Language features
may help (e.g., monitors).


Diego.