Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:49:29 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Let's use gcc-4.2, not 4.1 -- OpenMP Message-ID: <20061214074929.B47100@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <elrr0d$8g1$1@sea.gmane.org>; from ivoras@fer.hr on Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:35:41PM %2B0100 References: <20061213192150.CF83D16A417@hub.freebsd.org> <200612131711.50921.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4580DFAB.3080601@FreeBSD.org> <200612140917.25523@aldan> <elrr0d$8g1$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:35:41PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > Although commercial compilers (like Intel's icc for Windows and Linux, or Sun > > Studio on Solaris, or Visual Studio on Windows) have supported OpenMP pragmas > > for a while (icc even allows parallelizing accross multiple machines), > > gcc-4.2 is the first release of GCC that supports it (with `-fopenmp' flag). > > > > I anticipate, "out-of-the-box" OpenMP support will soon be one of the > > required "check-boxes" for an OS to be considered for many things... > > For what it's worth: +1. It's going to be practically required even for > medium-performance applications as CPU clock rate stagnate and more > cores are grown. I've recently seen a 16-cpu x86 server in 1U! (granted, > 8 of those are hyperthreaded "CPUs" ;) ) and the other 8 are overheated CPUs ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061214074929.B47100>