[LLVMdev] Re: idea 10
khamenya at mail.ru
Thu Jan 8 08:48:01 PST 2004
> I did not mean that one must change the Fibonacci function code, but
> that there are other way to express it, and that some of these
> expression are more suitable for parallelization. The "continuation
> passing style" is just a possibility among many others.
well, what to do with this example then? :)
> The problem I see is that the Fibonacci function you propose only fits
> to a particular domain of "distributed computing", and does not cover
> the broad range of needs that arise in distributed computing. As I
> presented in an earlier post, parallelization can be implemented in many
> ways, and can unravel many issues.
I am not that brave as to try to cover the broad range of needs
just with one example :)
I'd only say, that more simple examples could bring this
discussian to somthing clear and hopfully somthing
> Anyway, I'm curious to see how the Fibonacci function could be
> optimized. What kind of optimizations would you propose ?
oh, it is the worst form of Fibonacci function!
it has O(2^n) complexity! There is a
lot of optimization abilities even at single CPU,
up to linear time and constant memory ;)
However in this form it is a good model to discuss
simple problems of distributed computations.
(we could use Ackerman function as alternative)
More information about the llvm-dev