RE: [Gomp-discuss] Re: Implementing OpenMP pragmas for the Cfront end

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Steven Bosscher wrote:
> It's also very likely that people are more interested in OpenMP for C++
> than for C.  I've never seen any serious numerical code in C, and lots
> of them in C++.

That could very well change. C99 focused on numerical extensions; it is, in
some ways, superior to Fortran 95 for floating-point work. Many C99
extensions are incompatible with C++; see David Tribble's excellent site for
more detail:

http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm

I've recently been experimenting with C99 numeric extensions, in conjunction
with OpenMP, using the Intel Linux compiler.

> Note that C++ uses the same pragma handlers that C does (C++ uses
> c-pragma.c).  Scott, did you find any differences in the
> syntax/semantics of the OpenMP directives for C/C++?  If they are the
> same, we would only need c-openmp.c, no need for a cp-open.mp.c :-)

That's what I was trying to convey in my earlier message: The OpenMP syntax
is identical for C and C++. The only differences I found involve additional
requirements in C++ due to the nature of objects (construction, destruction,
etc. for private objects)

..Scott