Seems fine to me. Ron --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
-----Original Message----- From: Mahesha HS [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:32 PM To: Hal Finkel; [email protected] Cc: llvm cfe Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] OpenMP-Patch-1: fopenmp option support Hi Hal and Ron, Here is possibilities, for -fopenmp and -fno-openmp combinations. Is it looks okay? 1. Neither -fopenmp nor -fno-openmp is passed. if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) Do emit warning. else Do nothing. 2. Only -fopenmp is passed if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) Do process it. else Do nothing. 3. Only -fno-openmp is passed if (Translation unit has OpenMP source) Do nothing else Do nothing Note: It is actually no-op. 4. -fopenmp -fno-openmp is passed in the same order Same as 3. 5. -fno-openmp -fopenmp is passed in the same order Same as 2 -- mahesha On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Mahesha HS <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ron and Hal, > > I think, my investigation on -fno-openmp was not thorough enough. > Based on your mails, I do think that Clang should have support for > this option too. I will support this option. > > > -- > mahesha > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mahesha HS" <[email protected]> >>> To: "Eli Friedman" <[email protected]>, "Dmitri Gribenko" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "llvm cfe" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:47:50 AM >>> Subject: [cfe-commits] OpenMP-Patch-1: fopenmp option support >>> >>> Hi Eli and Dmitri, >>> >>> Let me start again from the beginning one step at a time. Going >>> further, I avoid sending more than one patch at a time as reviewing >>> (big) several patches requires considerable effort, and also some >>> time it is confusing. Attached is the very first patch to support >>> -fopenmp option. This patch is in fact smaller one, and it already >>> went through few rounds of review, and all the review comments are >>> taken for it. >>> >>> However, please take one more look at it, and if it is in a good >>> shape to commit, please do the same or provide me an approval to >>> commit this patch. OTOH, if there is any fresh review comments, I >>> will work on it. >>> >>> Note: Chandler as an opinion to support counter part of this option, >>> namely -fno-openmp. I am still thinking, if it is worth supporting >>> it as I am not aware of any other OpenMP compiler supporting such an >>> option. However, let us think about it, and if we decide that it is >>> useful to support it, I will support it. >> >> One thing that we could do, which gcc does not do (as of 4.7.2), is explicitly disable all unused pragma warnings when -fno-openmp is provided. Otherwise, the usefulness of -fno-openmp is certainly context dependent. As Mahesha points out, so long as OpenMP is disabled by default (as it is in gcc and many other compilers), using -fno-openmp by itself is a no-op. The inverted options are sometimes useful for overriding default options in a makefile (at least when the user options appear after the default options in the makefile). In gcc, -fopenmp -fno-openmp leaves OpenMP disabled, while -fno-openmp -fopenmp enables OpenMP. >> >> Mahesha, Thanks again for working on this. >> >> -Hal >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> mahesha >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >> >> -- >> Hal Finkel >> Postdoctoral Appointee >> Leadership Computing Facility >> Argonne National Laboratory > > > > -- > mahesha -- mahesha _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
