Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA!Al_Dunbar
From: userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Missing the whole point (the Fortran vs. C debate)
Message-ID: <1994@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Date: 8 Dec 90 18:41:00 GMT
References: <28548@usc> <185951.1857@timbuk.cray.com> <TMB.90Dec5014523@bambleweenie57.ai.mit.edu> <1990Dec5.182145.2639@ariel.unm.edu> <9424@ncar.ucar.edu>
Organization: MTS Univ of Alberta
Lines: 24

In article <9424@ncar.ucar.edu>, morreale@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Peter Morreale) writes:
>In article <1990Dec5.182145.2639@ariel.unm.edu>, john@ghostwheel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>>
<<<<deletions>>>>
>> With regard to expressing parallelism, the people at Myrias had
>> the easiest expression in Fortran that I have encountered yet.  If you
>> wanted a parallel do-loop, you said pardo instead of do.  That was it.  They
>
>    Sounds like a very non-portable construct.  The Cray method of
>    obtaining parallelism is to add directives which appear as Fortran
>    comment cards.   The directives are interpreted by source code
>    analyzers and translated into system calls.
>
 
With the death of Myrias Corp, PARDO may remain non-portable,
unless someone picks up the torch - there are not many Myrias
machines around. I don't see the construct as *very* non-portable,
though, as the syntax does not differ from that of a DO.
 
-------------------+-------------------------------------------
Al Dunbar          |
Edmonton, Alberta  |  "this mind left intentionally blank"
CANADA             |          - Manuel Writer
-------------------+-------------------------------------------