[LLVMdev] Re: idea 10

"?=Valery A.Khamenya=?koi8-r?Q?" 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 mailing list