Alternatives to ppl

In my previous question I've asked, I touched the parallel_for subject from ppl.h provided by Microsoft.

But shortly after I've realized that by using it one makes his application unportable (if I'm right it is specific to Microsoft (the ppl.h header)).

In my opinion this breaks very important aspect of programming in C++ - portability, and I'm just not prepare to do it.

So my questions are:

1. Am I right in saying that using parallel_for from ppl makes your code unportable (by unportable I mean that it cannot be compiled by other compiler than the one from MS)

2. Am I right in saying that if on lat开发者_开发问答er stage I want to provide UI (done in Qt) for the application I'm working on at the momment, using parallel_for in my code will be an obstruction which would mean that either I'll replace parallel_for with some other (portable) alternative or I won't be able to do UI in Qt and core in VS?

3. What are the (portable) alternatives to ppl?

You may want to consider Intel's Thread Building Blocks. Unlike OpenMP, TBB actually uses C++, rather than simply compiling under a C++ compiler (ie: being a C library that can compile as C++). It has many of the things you see in PPL, but it is cross-platform.

There is also Boost.Thread, which is C++ (though not quite as direct as TBB is), and it is cross-platform.

The people working on the Casablanca project have been making a portable version of PPL, called PPLX. It's licensed under an Apache 2.0 license.

They previously have said they are working closely together with the PPL team to keep both versions in sync feature and bugfix wise (see last post in this thread).

Whether you use PPL or TBB (or HPX) ... something very similar is going to be standardised. For instance see: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4411.pdf

Am I right in saying that using parallel_for from ppl makes your code unportable (by unportable I mean that it cannot be compiled by other compiler than the one from MS)

Unportable if you switch the platform itself. May be portable on Windows, if you want to use other compilers. But know that PPL is part of Concurrency Runtime, which is placed in MSVCRT100.DLL, and you need to link to this (or statically link, without needing DLL at runtime). I am not sure how this can be done with other compilers/linkers, but I do believe it is doable.

Am I right in saying that if on later stage I want to provide UI (done in Qt) for the application I'm working on at the momment, using parallel_for in my code will be an obstruction which would mean that either I'll replace parallel_for with some other (portable) alternative or I won't be able to do UI in Qt and core in VS

You can write your core-framework in using PPL/VC++, and other GUI counterpart in QT/other-compiler. For this just make a DLL which would use PPL, and your GUI application would use the DLL. I do believe you understand what I mean here. This also reduces burden from your head about portability (on Windows).

1. What are the (portable) alternatives to ppl?

Many, but I prefer using PPL on Windows/VC++. You may consider using Intel's TBB. OpenMP is troublesome, and doesn't give advantages as compared to TBB/ConcRT