Abstract
SummaryWe study five popular auto‐parallelization frameworks (Cetus, Par4all, Rose, ICC, and Pluto) and compare them qualitatively as well as quantitatively. All the frameworks primarily deal with loop parallelization but differ in the techniques used to identify parallelization opportunities. Due to this variance, various aspects, such as certain loop transformations, are supported only in a few frameworks. The frameworks exhibit varying abilities in handling loop‐carried dependence and, therefore, achieve different amounts of speedup on widely used PolyBench and NAS parallel benchmarks. In particular, Intel C Compiler (ICC) fares as an overall good parallelizer. Our study also highlights the need for more sophisticated analyses, user‐driven parallelization, and meta‐auto‐parallelizer that provides combined benefits of various frameworks.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
