ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp:8729
+/// \code
+/// void .omp_mapper.<type_name>.<mapper_id>.(void *rt_mapper_handle,
+/// void *base, void *begin,
----------------
lildmh wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > lildmh wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > This function looks like the universal one, regardless of the type
> > > > > > `<type_name>` specifics. Do we really need to generate it for each
> > > > > > particular type and mapper? Or we could use the same function for
> > > > > > all types/mappers?
> > > > > I think we need a particular mapper function for each type and
> > > > > mapper, because the code generated within the mapper function depends
> > > > > on what type and what mapper it is.
> > > > Hmm, maybe I'm wrong but I don't see significant mapper or
> > > > type-specific dependencies in this mapper function. It uses the pointer
> > > > to type and size of the type, but this information can be generalized,
> > > > I think. Could you point the lines of code that are type and mapper
> > > > specific?
> > > Code between line 8857-8965 is type and mapper specific. For instance,
> > > `generateAllInforForMapper` depends on the map clauses associated with
> > > the mapper and the internal structure of struct/class type, and generates
> > > difference code as a result. `BasePointers.size()` also depends on the
> > > above things.
> > Most of these data can be passed as parameters to the function. It would be
> > good, if we could move this function to the libomptaret library and reduce
> > the number of changes (and, thus, complexity) of the compiler itself. It is
> > always easier to review and to maintain the source code written in C/C++
> > rather than the changes in the compiler codegen. Plus, it may reduce the
> > size of the final code significantly, I assume. I would appreciate it if
> > you would try to move this function to libomptarget.
> Hi Alexey, I don't think libomptarget can do this efficiently. For example,
>
> ```
> class C {
> int a;
> double *b
> }
>
> #pragma omp declare mapper(C c) map(c.a, c.b[0:1])
> ```
>
> The codegen can directly know there are 2 components (c.a, c.b[0]) in this
> mapper function (3 actually when we count the pointer), and it can also know
> the size, starting address, map type, etc. about these components. Passing
> all these information to libomptarget seems to be a bad idea. Or did I get
> your idea wrong?
>
Yes, I understand this. But can we pass some additional parameters to this
function so we don't need to generate a unique copy of almost the same function
for all types/mappers?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
