Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

Reply
Thread Tools

what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

 
 
ramyach@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Hi friends,
I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler. Or are there any other parallel C
languages that have this feature?
It would be more helpful if someone explains the differences
among mpC, paralle C, parallel C in OpenMP and MPI. To which language
does the following directives belong to.
#pragma parallel
#pragma pfor
#pragma synchronize

Thanks in advance
Ramya

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
>running SGI Irix 6.5.


You should probably take this question to comp.sys.sgi.misc

>This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
>have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
>group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
>programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
>supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler.


No, the MIPSpro compilers do not support the Parallel C language.

>Or are there any other parallel C
>languages that have this feature?


[OT]

Here are some SGI links for you:

"MIPSpro Auto-Parallelizing Option Programmer's Guide"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPro_AP_PG

You probably don't want to use that, though, as it is noticable
extra cost. It's useful when you first start out, but once you see
what kind of transformations it makes to your code, it is usually
easier to put in the directives manually.


"C Language Reference Manual"

"Chapter 10. Multiprocessing Directives"
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch10.html

"Chapter 11. Multiprocessing Advanced Features"
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch11.html

In other words, you can put the directives in manually.
Includes #pragma parallel, #pragma pfor, and #pragma synchronize .
These are not from different languages: they are all pragmas
that SGI uses to mark different aspects of parallel programming.

These are supported by SGI's C, and C++. SGI's F77 (Fortran 77)
multiprocessing directive support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/..._html/apb.html

and F77's OpenMP directive support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch05.html

The F90 (Fortran 90) OpenMP support is documented at
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...html/ch04.html


"Message Passing Toolkit: MPI Programmer's Manual"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPT_MPI_PM


"Message Passing Toolkit: PVM Programmer's Guide"

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...per/MPT_PVM_PM


Various SGI system manual pages:

mpconf - multiprocessing configuration
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...cat3c/mpconf.z

sysmp - multiprocessing (and realtime) controls
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...andard/sysmp.z

pthreads - introduction to POSIX threads
http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/...e=5%20pthreads
--
I am spammed, therefore I am.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Nilsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Hi friends,
> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
> have any idea of parallel C languages.


Neither does standard C.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Hi friends,
>> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
>> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
>> have any idea of parallel C languages.

>
> Neither does standard C.
>
> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt


That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

The best I can find online is
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Simon Biber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

>
>
> That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
> charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
>
> The best I can find online is
> <ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
> which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
>
> [When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
> asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
> is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
> so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
>
> If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters. It has
always got along fine without one. The regular posters define what is
allowable and not allowable.

--
Simon.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Jordan Abel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> Hi friends,
>>> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
>>> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
>>> have any idea of parallel C languages.

>>
>> Neither does standard C.
>>
>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

>
> That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
> charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


There is none.

[...]

> If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


I'm not sure that it would be practical to create one and have it
accepted by -- well, by whoever would need to accept it for it to
become "official". We seem to have a general (though not universal)
consensus about what's topical.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:43:15 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> Hi friends,
>>> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
>>> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
>>> have any idea of parallel C languages.

>>
>> Neither does standard C.
>>
>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

>
>That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
>charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


There isn't one - CLC predates the existence of the charter scheme.
The welcome message, FAQ, other regularly posted notes and topicality
guidelines provided by regulars constitute the equivalent of a
charter.

>The best I can find online is
><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
>which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"


This is merely the group description.

>[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
>asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
>is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
>so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]


You're mistaken. The nonexistence of a written consitution doesn't
prevent the group having one, any more than it prevented the UK from
having one for at least a millenium longer than CLC.

>If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


No.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>> On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

>>
>>
>> That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
>> charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
>>
>> The best I can find online is
>> <ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
>> which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
>>
>> [When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
>> asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
>> is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
>> so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
>>
>> If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

>
> Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.


And also that of Standard C.

Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
precise.

My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
on-topic for csc and not clc]

which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.

> It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
> what is allowable and not allowable.


The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
has developed into a convention?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jordan Abel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
....
>The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
>is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
>only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
>decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
>one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
>has developed into a convention?


Who just wandered into a mosque and asked "Why is Christianity O/T here?" ?

 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Jordan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
>>>charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
>>>
>>>The best I can find online is
>>><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
>>>which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
>>>
>>>[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
>>>asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
>>>is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
>>>so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
>>>
>>>If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

>>
>>Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

>
>
> And also that of Standard C.
>
> Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
> ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
> precise.
>
> My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
> about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
> to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
> off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
> least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
> on-topic for csc and not clc]
>
> which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
> on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
>
>
>>It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
>>what is allowable and not allowable.

>
>
> The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
> is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
> only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
> decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
> one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
> has developed into a convention?


I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
critics of the language, are on topic here.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parallel in, Parallel out shift register Vivek Menon VHDL 5 06-08-2011 03:56 PM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thought itwas a parallel language ? Andy VHDL 0 09-18-2008 01:07 PM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thoughtit was a parallel language ? backhus VHDL 0 09-18-2008 06:23 AM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thought itwas a parallel language ? ghelbig VHDL 0 09-18-2008 05:55 AM
Parallel port control with USB->Parallel converter Soren Python 4 02-14-2008 03:18 PM



Advertisments