Re: [Gomp-discuss] Start of an OpenMP Implementation Spec

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Biagio Lucini wrote:
> which is where we languish: practical implementation. So far no-one has 
> provided a proof of concept, though many got close, including you and me. 

I'd be willing to work on practical implementation if I had some 
response as to the best direction to take. Given that GCC is a community 
project, I hesitate to simply throw something out and say "here it is" 
without starting from some sort of consensus.

Also, I believe in design before implementation. To that end, I've made 
very specific proposals and offered sets of solutions; a lack of 
feedback tells me that I must either be a complete doofus, or that no 
one really cares.

> I am disillusioned at the moment. Probably someone else will tackle the 
> project. I hope to have provided at least the environment.

I, too, am disillusioned. I've been hunting for funding, only to be 
stymied by a variety of factors ranging from a poor economy to a lack of 
vision. In one case, a well-known group of GCC developers was on the 
verge of getting funding when the customer decided that using commercial 
compilers was cheaper than funding work on GCC. In another case, a 
potential funding source decided to go with Java (a choice that they now 
regret, as I recently learned).

As a single consultant/developer, I can't afford to spend large amounts 
of time on unfunded projects; I have daughters and lizards to feed. The 
case for OpenMP seems quite clear to me, and the cost quite low; even a 
few thousand dollars would move GOMP forward. But so far, I have been 
unsuccessful in finding funds.

I continue to try, though. ;)

..Scott

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing