llnl / llnl/AutoParBench

Survey Question on the For loop in source file benchmarks/baseline/NPB3.0-omp-c/LU/lu.c line 3312

Open
#9 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
C
Stars
12
Forks
1
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

Hello Sir/ Madam
We are from a research group at Iowa State University, USA. We want to do a survey on Github developers on the methods they used for paralleling their code. To do the survey, We want to ask three questions about this for loop:
1. Can you briefly explain the purpose of using pragma for this case? If the pragma contained reduction and private clauses, can you briefly mention the purposes of variables in those clauses?

2. How much confidence do you have about the correctness of this implementation? You can choose from 1-5 with 1 as the lowest confidence score and 5 as the highest confidence score.

3. (Optional) Do you actually run (interpret the code with compilation and pass input/get output) the code and see the optimization of parallelization? Yes/No
- If yes, can you provide the information of what are the input and expected output of this program (the input that caused the program to run through this for-loop).

The for loop is from line 3312 of file https:/github.com/LLNL/AutoParBench/blob/master/benchmarks/baseline/NPB3.0-omp-c/LU/lu.c
Here is a part of the code:

omp parallel for firstprivate(m )
for (m = 0; m < 5; m++)
{
xcrref[m] = 1.0;
xceref[m] = 1.0;
}

Sincerely thanks

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Read benchmarks/baseline/NPB3.0-omp-c/LU/lu.c around line 3312 and inspect the surrounding OpenMP loop. The issue requests survey responses about the pragma, confidence in correctness, and optional execution details; done means providing those responses rather than changing repository files.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
c
Domain
compilers, documentation
Issue type
Documentation
Difficulty
1/5
Estimated time
Under an hour
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
15/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.