Hello,
It seems CILK is much easier to use than Open CL.
Do you have any information of the performance of CILK vs. Open CL on the same machine (e.g Intel's Ivy-Bridge) ?
Does it depend on the what I'm trying to do ?
My interest is Signal Processing (FFT, matrix manipulation etc.)
Thanks,
Zvika
Hello everyone,
Yesterday I got fresh version of XE Composer 2013 (finally...). After painless installation, I have turned on the library [Intel Composer XE 2013 - > Use Intel C++]. Furthermore I have set up additional Include Directories: .../mkl/include & ...compiler/include.
Of course I haven't forgotten about the headers -> #include <cilk\cilk.h>.
So after all of this, Visual Studio 2010 is still showing me the error - "_Cilk_for" is undefined, the same for "spawn" and "sync". Why?
Hello,
I'm looking for a CILK version of FFTW.
Can you help ?
Thanks,
Zvika
The following program causes a runtime crash reducer_impl.cpp:527: cilk assertion failed: h
My compiler is icc 13.1.1 on Ubuntu 12.04.
#include <cilk/reducer.h>
#include <cilk/reducer_opadd.h>
#include <cilk/cilk.h>
#include void empty() {}
std::atomic n;
int test(int *x) {
cilk::reducer_opadd r;
n = 40000;
while (n--) {
cilk_spawn empty();
}
return 0;
}
int main() {
int x = 1;
return test(&x);
}
Hello,
The attached code is an FFT implementation. It should work on any input vector length
I converted each for loop into a clik_for loop.
When I did it in line "for (i = 1; i < n; i += 2)" the results of the FFT were wrong.
There is also a probem with the while loops.
I tried to convert: "while (n > mmax)" to "cilk_for (;n>mmax;)" but I got a syntax error: missing control variable declaration and initialization.
What is the right way to convert a regular FFT code to a clik code ?
Thanks,
Zvika
Hello,
I ran a (very) simple cilk_for loop on a CoreI5-2400 CPU under windows XP-32bit.
The code is attached. It was compiled and built with the latest intel compiler using MSDEV 2010
It seems that this loop runs a little bit faster than this loop implemented with intrinsic C.
But my CPU has 4 cores.
I expect the cilk code to run 4 times faster.
How can I cause all cores to participate in the calculation ?
Thanks,
Zvika
The Cilk Plus spec says that for #pragma simd, the private, firstprivate, lastprivate, and reduction clauses are as OpenMP. However, in the OpenMP 4.0rc2 spec, the firstprivate clause is not valid in <#omp simd>.
Is the firstprivate clause valid for Cilk Plus' <#pragma simd>?
Hi.
What are the types allowed in the vectorlengthfor clause?
The 1.1 spec just says "type-name" with no restrictions whatsoever. However, the icc 12.1 manual says "data type must be one of built-in integer types (8, 16, 32, or 64bit), pointer types (treated as pointer-sized integer), floating point types (32 or 64bit), or complex types (64bit or 128bit).". Which is correct?
Assuming the icc manual is correct and the spec is lacking, are typedef substitutions allowed? Say, "typedef int typint". Is vectorlength(typint) allowed?
