 |
 |
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 13:24, Richard Maine wrote: > [ my forall example ] > Remember that a major motivation for FORALL is that it can be done in > parallel. Ah, "parallel"; that's the key concept I was overlooking. I was merely thinking of order independence, but still sequentially, and was ignoring the possibility of simultaneous execution. Yes now things make sense. :-) Regarding the use of an array temporary: in the case of actual sequential execution, is it reasonable to expect that an optimizer will substitute a scalar temp for the array temp? I've got no sense of what's easy/hard for optimizers. -- Neil N. Carlson Motorola, Los Alamos Research Park Motorola Labs / PSRL 4200 W. Jemez Road, Suite 300 Computational Nanoscience Group Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 [log in to unmask] Fax: (505) 663-5150 Voice: (505) 663-5106 Pager: [log in to unmask] or 888-946-2817