Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8420969
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 10, 20262026-06-10T03:00:32+00:00 2026-06-10T03:00:32+00:00

The following simple code doesn’t give the expected result with gcc 4.7.0. Is this

  • 0

The following simple code doesn’t give the expected result with gcc 4.7.0. Is this correct or a bug?

  unsigned count_err(std::vector<unsigned> const&num, unsigned mask)
  {
    unsigned c=0;
    // enables to reuse the lambda later (not in this simple example)
    auto f = [&] (unsigned i) { if(i&mask) ++c; };
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:c)
    for(unsigned i=0; i<num.size(); ++i)
      f(num[i]);
    return c;
  }

this returns zero: the reduction of c from the lambda function is not done. Btw, I expected the result to be that returned by the serial function

  unsigned count_ser(std::vector<unsigned> const&num, unsigned mask)
  {
    unsigned c=0;
    auto f = [&] (unsigned i) { if(i&mask) ++c; };
    std::for_each(num.begin(),num.end(),f);
    return c;
  }

The following implementations give the expected result (in both cases, the code definitions doing the increment of the reduction variable is moved into the parallel region)

  unsigned count_ok1(std::vector<unsigned> const&num, unsigned mask)
  {
    unsigned c=0;
    auto f = [&] (unsigned i) -> bool { return i&mask; };
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:c)
    for(unsigned i=0; i<num.size(); ++i)
      if(f(num[i])) ++c;
    return c;
  }

  unsigned count_ok2(std::vector<unsigned> const&num, unsigned mask)
  {
    unsigned c=0;
#pragma omp parallel reduction(+:c)
    {
      auto f = [&] (unsigned i) { if(i&mask) ++c; };
#pragma omp for
      for(unsigned i=0; i<num.size(); ++i)
        f(num[i]);
    }
    return c;
  }

Is the fact that count_err() gives a different result a compiler bug or correct?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-10T03:00:33+00:00Added an answer on June 10, 2026 at 3:00 am

    I think it’s not a compiler bug. Here is my explaination. I think in your first example the lambdas were holding a reference to the global c variable. The thread local copies of c were created when we entered the for-loop. So the threads were incrementing the same global variable (without any synchronization). When we exit the loop the thread-local copies of c (all equal to zero, because the lambdas don’t know about them) are summed up to give you 0. The count_ok2 version works because lambdas are holding references to the local c copies.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

i have the following simple code, but it doesn,t work <ul> <li id=one onmouseover=this.style.background-color='white';>
I can't see why this doesn't work. The following code block throws a warning
Following simple POC code's translateZ works on Firefox, but it doesn't work on Chrome.
I have the following sample code which doesn't seem to want to run. import
The following simple code pattern is very common in graphics programming. It creates an
I have a following simple code: def get(): return [lambda: i for i in
I've got the following simple code: @for (int j = 0; j < file.Items.Count;
I have the following simple code abstract class A { public abstract void Test(Int32
I am trying to run the following simple code, public abstract class Shape{ abstract
Just wondering, having the following simple code: var object1 = { name: function (){

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.