[Cplex] Keywords, compliance, and a parallel UNCOL.

Olivier Giroux OGiroux at nvidia.com
Sat Jun 29 05:56:59 CEST 2013

The main issue some see with language extensions is that they are not
extendable themselves, by users.  Everyone is going to want/need to tweak
this and few are compiler engineers.  Some will want to plug in
significantly different implementations of their own.

There were some really good points made by Pablo at the last meeting,
about the weak points of library solutions in this space.  The question
now is: what is the more general language feature that will make the
library extension great?  That feature could make all of C++ better.

Lastly there is much to like in Cilk because it's a good design.  You're
getting very few arguments about the semantics.  More people would be
happy with a Cilk library, even the design Pablo showed and disliked.


On 6/28/13 4:01 PM, "Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson at intel.com> wrote:

>There are a few people in the C++ committee who are
>strongly opposed to requiring support for parallelism in the compiler, but
>the clear majority (at least in the parallelism study group) are at least
>weakly in favor of it. Personally, I have no idea what's eventually going
>happen in WG21.

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

More information about the Cplex mailing list