Re: [computer-go] Hardware-Instruction.

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

> According my feeling is Cilk more high level than e.g. MPI. It is easier
> converting an existing programm to a parallel version with Cilk than with
> MPI. I assume (but have never done any concrete tests or studies) that this
> high-level comes with a price. MPI is probably faster and more flexible.

Cilk is really C, so it's not a high level language.  Probably you are
right about  the flexibility issue,  Cilk does the  scheduling itself.
But MIT  did a lot  of studies and  for computer Chess and  many other
kinds of tasks, they showed that the random work stealing algorithm is
"provably  efficient", whatever  that means.   It would  very  hard to
demonstrate an  improved scheduling algorithm and  before Cilk Bradley
Kuszmaul did a  parallel chess program at MIT that  use the same exact
algorithm but doing it the hard way, without Cilk.

- Don
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/