josemonsalve2 wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Chenle or Adrian divided this PR into multiple ones. They may be able to
provide info on it.
That was last year. I went on paternity leave and lost track of the
progress on these PRs. I have yet to find the time to pick up on this work.
@@ -1176,6 +1176,8 @@ def warn_pragma_ms_fenv_access : Warning<
def warn_pragma_extra_tokens_at_eol : Warning<
"extra tokens at end of '#pragma %0' - ignored">,
InGroup;
+def err_omp_extension_without_ompx : Error<
+ "Using extension directive '%0' in #pragma omp instead
josemonsalve2 wrote:
Sorry, @alexey-bataev, some were marked as resolved, and we did not see them.
The wording on my previous question needed to be corrected, too. I did not mean
to ask if this is ready to land as is but instead if the division of the
original PR into just this front-end part
@@ -937,10 +937,13 @@ PRAGMA_ANNOTATION(pragma_opencl_extension)
// distinguish between a real pragma and a converted pragma. It is not marked
// as a PRAGMA_ANNOTATION because it doesn't get generated from a #pragma.
ANNOTATION(attr_openmp)
+ANNOTATION(attr_openmp_extension)
@@ -1400,6 +1402,12 @@ def warn_omp_unknown_assumption_clause_missing_id
def warn_omp_unknown_assumption_clause_without_args
: Warning<"%0 clause should not be followed by arguments; tokens will be
ignored">,
InGroup;
+def warn_omp_extension_directive_not_enabled
+
@@ -1176,6 +1176,8 @@ def warn_pragma_ms_fenv_access : Warning<
def warn_pragma_extra_tokens_at_eol : Warning<
"extra tokens at end of '#pragma %0' - ignored">,
InGroup;
+def err_omp_extension_without_ompx : Error<
+ "Using extension directive '%0' in #pragma omp instead
josemonsalve2 wrote:
This patch is now only for the front end. @shiltian @alexey-bataev, let us know
what you think about landing just this. We are going to push another PR with
the runtime changes, and that one will include numbers for performance.
josemonsalve2 wrote:
I mean front end code minus the taskgraph directive part. Just the part that
allows for ompx to be used.
If we include the taskgraph, then it will generate code that cannot be linked.
So it would be a PR that will not work for programs.
josemonsalve2 wrote:
My concern is how to split it up is I do not know a set of features that can
work independently to each other. We can add the ompx infrastructure in one,
but it won't be used by anything in that PR. Will that be ok?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66919
josemonsalve2 wrote:
> Waiting for the evaluation, if possible
Thanks Shilai, Chenle is working on the evaluation.
The one aspect that we are still not sure what to do about is if we should
split this up into multiple PRs or not.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66919
josemonsalve2 wrote:
@jdoerfert ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66919
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -234,6 +236,26 @@ class CGOpenMPTaskOutlinedRegionInfo final : public
CGOpenMPRegionInfo {
const UntiedTaskActionTy
};
+/// API for captured statement code generation in OpenMP taskgraphs.
+class CGOpenMPTaskgraphRegionInfo final : public CGOpenMPRegionInfo {
+public:
Author: Rafael A. Herrera Guaitero
Date: 2023-04-03T20:33:55Z
New Revision: 64549f0903e244fbe2e7f0131698334b6e45dc10
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/64549f0903e244fbe2e7f0131698334b6e45dc10
DIFF:
Author: Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz
Date: 2022-06-08T23:35:11Z
New Revision: d6f6cd5cd52bbfe91444226ef8a9687288d939b1
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d6f6cd5cd52bbfe91444226ef8a9687288d939b1
DIFF:
Author: Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz
Date: 2022-06-08T17:41:04Z
New Revision: 28aa7d188492223eb600317239f97b3f76dff1ee
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/28aa7d188492223eb600317239f97b3f76dff1ee
DIFF:
15 matches
Mail list logo
