Hello again, first of all, thank you for comments. That is certainly an interesting project. When you submit your GSoC

application, please identify exactly which library you plan to parallelize with OpenMP, and which parts of that library you will parallelize.

- Doug

Well, I enumerated three libraries that I could parallelize with OpenMP in the project. Therefore, I did't specify how I'd parallelize them, because (in the project) one of the tasks to be done after choose a library is to identify the bottlenecks. So, I thought I should do this at that moment. Furthermore, if I have opportunity to parallelize more than three libraries, it'll be necessary to do this step for the others libraries; so, why mustn't I do it for all of them?

Just a quick question. Wouldn't be TBB the better choice instead of

...

OpenMP?

I can see good reasons for both options. TBB will make it easier to implement task-oriented parallel algorithms, but it brings with it a dependency on a non-Boost library. OpenMP is reasonably good at data parallelism (and can require fewer changes to algorithms where it applies), and depends on features available in many compilers, but it isn't as widely applicable as TBB. I think you choice will be dictated mainly by the library you choose, and how you think you will need to parallelize that library.

- Doug

The use of TBB is a really good idea, so I could parallelize each chosen library in Boost with the best library to that case (between OpenMP and TBB). What do you think about it? Best, -- Cristianno Martins Mastering in Computer Science State University of Campinas cristianno.martins@students.ic.unicamp.br skype: cristiannomartins gTalk: cristiannomartins msn: cristiannomartins@hotmail.com (rarely used)