[Users] Fortran OpenMP parallel do

[Yosef Zlochower]

Dr. Yosef Zlochower
http://ccrg.rit.edu/
Tel. (585) 475-6103

> On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Roland Haas <roland.haas at physics.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello all,
> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 08:54:08AM -0400, Yosef Zlochower wrote:
>>> I though that for C code, the (outermost) loop index was
>>> automatically private. Has this changed in the openmp standard?
> Philipp and I did some more reading of the OpenMP specs
> (http://www.openmp.org/mp-documents/spec30.pdf‎) and while we could
> not find a helpful definition of "associated loops" (since those are
> the ones whose controlling variables are automatically private in
> FOTRAN) we *did* find an example in the specs that does exactly what
> we do. Example A.7.1f (on page 168) has:
> $OMP DO
>     DO 300 I = 1,10
>       DO 300 J = 1,10
>         CALL WORK(I,J)
> 300  CONTINUE
> !$OMP ENDDO
> which would indicate that that *both* nested loops are seen as one and
> that both i and j are private. Note that the 2.0 specs (which have no
> COLLAPSE yet) also speak of do_loops and inner and outer loops so this
> all points towards the standard requiring that all nested loops in
> FORTRAN have private loop variables.
> 
> HOWEVER we certainly should NOT do this in C since no such guarantee
> is given there and I believe we SHOULD do as Erik suggested and
> explicitly declare all loop control variables as private (in FORTRAN)
> since the standard is confusing and possibly misleading. Appendix A.8
> of the specs give more information on this.

The openmp specs (both the latest and previous) indicate that the iteration variable is implicitly private in c. See 2.6 in the new specs and 2.5.1 in the previous.  I'm not sure how this applies to internal loops. 
> 
>> Having said that, assume a construct like:
>> 
>> #pragma omp parallel for for (int i=0; i<N; i++) { }
>> 
>> Can you here actually specify private(i)? 'i' isn't even declared
>> at the point of the pragma yet.
> This is fine and actually the recommended method since it declares "i"
> inside of the parallel region so it is automatically private. It is
> (up to the lifetime of "i" after the loop ends) the same as:
> #pragma omp parallel for
> {
> int i;
> for (i=0; i<N; i++)
> {
> }
> }
> 
> Yours,
> Roland
> 
> - -- 
> My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting
> and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlJxcL4ACgkQTiFSTN7SboUJQgCeOIyqXdQwgqDpjbdklLbH9oXy
> HNoAniqAdDAk1xSI3tMbsv2CJETqDClT
> =9VeU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at einsteintoolkit.org
> http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users