https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Array-notation-replacement/m-p/1165043#M79145 <P>Yes, using "for" loops and some type of user hints (e.g., OpenMP simd construct) with an appropriate code generation option (e.g., for AVX, AVX2, AVX512) is a good starting point in my opinion.</P> Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:13:27 GMT Hansang_B_Intel 2017-11-29T21:13:27Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Array-notation-replacement/m-p/1165042#M79144 <P>I saw the article/guide to translate code from cilk plus to TBB or openMP. That's all fine, but the article ignores the concept of Array Notations.</P> <P>Now, with the deprecation of Cilk Plus, I am wondering was is Intel's take on how we should translate code using array notations to code that doesn't use it. And of course, to keep the same performance as before.</P> <P>Does simple 'for' loops around the data, coupled with some #pragmas, the preferred solution? Or should be try to go for AVX intrinsics?</P> Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:24:51 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Array-notation-replacement/m-p/1165042#M79144 Alexandre_C_ 2017-11-29T19:24:51Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Array-notation-replacement/m-p/1165043#M79145 <P>Yes, using "for" loops and some type of user hints (e.g., OpenMP simd construct) with an appropriate code generation option (e.g., for AVX, AVX2, AVX512) is a good starting point in my opinion.</P> Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:13:27 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Array-notation-replacement/m-p/1165043#M79145 Hansang_B_Intel 2017-11-29T21:13:27Z