On 11/27/13 10:06, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/25/2013 11:03 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
On a broad note, I think there's a lot of OpenMP code you could be
reusing here rather than writing it all again. And that way Cilk code
will benefit from improvements to OpenMP handling, and vice versa. It
probably makes sense to turn Cilk_for into an OMP_FOR loop, and then
gimplify into GIMPLE_OMP_FOR, rather than create a new tree code and
handle everything at the tree level. But I don't know the OMP code well
enough to suggest exactly how that would work.
That's certainly the direction I'd like to see this work go as well. To
the fullest extent possible Cilk+ should be layering on top of the
OpenMP 4 work -- ie, Cilk+ should really be dealing with parsing issues,
then handoff to OpenMP for the real work.
Jeff
