I suspected that much. It would be good to have a libcilkrts/README.gcc
describing the rules which changes can go into the gcc tree directly, which
need to go upstream first, and how. libo and libsanitizer already have this.
Hi Rainer,
It is mentioned under the "CONTRIBUTIONS"
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 3:26 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Zamyatin, Igor
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR 60586
>
> On 08/31/2015 06:04 PM, Iyer, Balaji V w
> -Original Message-
> From: Iyer, Balaji V
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: 'Jeff Law'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Zamyatin, Igor
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] PR 60586
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Law [ma
Hi Jeff,
I thought about this for a minute and I don't think I need to use the
lang_hooks. I could do this change right before calling gimplify_cilk_spawn. I
have attached the fixed patch and have answered your questions below. Here are
the ChangeLog entries:
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
Hello Everyone,
This patch will fix the bug reported in Bugzilla, PR 60586. The issue
was that the spawned function's function arguments must not be pushed into the
nested/lambda function. This patch should fix that issue.
I have tested this on x86_64 (linux and Cygwin flavors). Is this
PING!
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:43 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Fix for PR c++/60198
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that is a fix for PR c++/60198. Is this OK
for trunk?
Here
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that is a fix for PR c++/60198. Is this
OK for trunk?
Here are the changelog entries:
Cp/ChangeLog
+2015-02-19 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
+
+ PR c++/60198
+ * pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Added CILK_SPAWN_STMT
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that is a fix for PR c++/60269.
Tested on x86_64 and have no regression issues. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
+2015-02-18 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
+
+ PR c++/60269
+ * parser.c
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 8:06 AM
To: Alexander Ivchenko
Cc: Richard Biener; GCC Patches; Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: Fix PR60644
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:46:13PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
ping
I mis-spelled the org as og and thus the email got bounced. So, here it is
again.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:34 PM
To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.og
Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:ger...@pfeifer.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:29 PM
To: Tobias Burnus
Cc: gcc-patches; Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Burnus
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus
-Original Message-
From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Iyer, Balaji
-Original Message-
From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:32 PM
To: Andi Kleen; Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
Am 08.03.2014 21:13
-Original Message-
From: Andi Kleen [mailto:a...@firstfloor.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Andi Kleen; Tobias Burnus; Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Marek Polacek
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:39 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly check for _Cilk_spawn in return stmt
Hi Jakub,
Did you get a chance to look at this?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:17 PM
To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com
Yeah, it passed regtesting. Note that we also ICE on e.g.
int
foo (void)
{
int i;
i = (_Cilk_spawn foo ()) + 1;
return i;
}
I don't know whether this is valid use of _Cilk_spawn though. In any case,
this patch addresses only _Cilk_spawn in return statements.
This is invalid.
Hello Everyone,
This patch will fix two minor issues in libcilkrts. First being that we
default to ABI 0 and secondly, fix an issue to initialize the stack frame
correctly. All the changes are in libcilkrts and does not cause any regression
failures.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
diff --git
Hi Marek,
Thanks for working on this. Please see my comments below.
-Original Message-
From: Marek Polacek [mailto:pola...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:43 PM
To: GCC Patches
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: [PATCH] Properly check for _Cilk_spawn in return stmt
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:34 PM
To: Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Cilk+ ICEs in the alias oracle
On 02/13/14 05:47, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb
Hi Jakub,
Did you get a chance to look at this patch?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:07 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:59 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C
More importantly, what is retval.1? I'd expect you should be using
retval.0 there and have it also as firstprivate(retval.0) on the parallel.
In *.omplower dump I actually see:
retval.0 = operator-int (D.2885, i); ...
retval.1 = operator-int
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:10 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 9:03 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com
Hi Jakub,
This should fix PR 59834
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59834) on i686-linux.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 6:51 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; Richard Biener
Cc: gcc
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that will fix the issue in PR 59691. The
main issue was that the Cilk library (libcilkrts) was not checking if the
target has SSE support before emitting SSE instruction. This patch should fix
that.
Here is the ChangeLog entries:
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:paolo.carl...@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:53 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: regression test issue
Hi,
On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone
Sorry, I forgot to put [PATCH] in the subject line. Is the patch below OK to
install?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:02 PM
To: 'Paolo Carlini'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: regression test issue
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:25 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: regression test issue
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:08:32PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Sorry, I
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:43 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: regression test issue
On Wed, Feb 05
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Orth
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Paolo Carlini; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: regression test issue
Iyer
Hello Jakub,
I think I have found a fix to _Cilk_for to be structured the way you
requested. I am currently trying to clean up my code so that I can send you a
patch.
Now, I am trying to remove the 2 fields I put in gimple_omp_for_iter:
loop_count and grain. But, it is giving
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:23 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: question about gtype-desc.c
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:12:13PM +, Iyer
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:36 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: question about gtype-desc.c
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:26:20PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
gtype-desc.c:8176: error
Hello Everyone,
The following two Cilk Plus tests is timing out at -O1 in my x86_64 box
(-O2, -O3 and -O0 works fine). These tests were working fine till revision
r207047. Can someone please look at this? It looks like a middle-end/back-end
issue.
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL:
Hi Paolo,
We are looking into this issue. Will let you know as soon as we find a
fix.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Carlini [mailto:paolo.carl...@oracle.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:04 AM
To: g...@gnu.org
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek
-complete. Is the patch OK for
trunk?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: RE: [PING
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:04 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Issue with _Cilk_for
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:42:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Can you explain why you emit
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:26 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Issue with _Cilk_for
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:18:28PM
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Umesh Kalappa
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:36 AM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Enable debug info
Dear All,
We need to support the debug info emit for our private port on gcc
Hi Jakub,
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:31 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:36 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
-Original Message-
From
Hi Jakub et al.,
Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Jakub
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:50 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 2:42 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On Thu, Jan 23
Hello Jakub and Aldy,
As you both requested, this patch will replace flag_enable_cilkplus
with flag_cilkplus. I have committed this patch since the change is a
small/obvious one. Please let me know if you like me to change anything.
Here are the ChangeLog entries:
gcc/ChangeLog
Hi Jakub,
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:13 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:28 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix for PR 59825
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27:58AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014
Hi Jakub,
Did you get a chance to look at this? Is it OK to install to trunk?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:37 PM
To: Jakub
Hello Everyone,
The attached patch will fix the issue pointed out in PR 58996. The main
issue was that the runtime was not checking for the availability of pthread
affinity before calling its functions. This patch should fix that.
Here is the ChangeLog entry:
2014-01-20 Balaji V. Iyer
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:55 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix for PR 59825
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:37:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone
: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:46 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
functions) for C++
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:12:29PM +
to you.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Jason Merrill; 'Jeff Law'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'r...@redhat.com'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C
Hello Everyone,
I would like to patch these two patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00408.html -- _Cilk_for
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00116.html -- SIMD enabled
functions for C++
They have been under review for a while now (~1
Hello Everyone,
I noticed that there was an error in the testcode in
check_libcilkrts_available target-supports function for C++. It was working
fine in C but needed an extern C along with a prototype for C++. This patch
below should fix that. This patch is committed as obvious (..more
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch that will fix PR 59825. The main issue
was array notations occurring in COMPOUND_EXPR. This patch should fix that and
fix the rank_mismatch2.c test-case ICE.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
diff --git
Hello Jakub,
Did you get a chance to look at this patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00116.html)? I think I have fixed
all the changes you requested. Is it ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
Hello Everyone,
The following patch will fix the bug in PR 59094. The main issue was
that version specific libraries are not stored in the correct location. The
patch below should fix that. It is committed since the person who filed the bug
has confirmed that the fix works.
Index:
A small but major typo.
The second sentence should read ...usage of _Cilk_spawn [ and _Cilk_sync]
*without* -fcilkplus... instead of ...with -fcilkplus...
I am sorry about this.
Sincerely,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10
Hello Everyone,
Attached, please find a patch will fix the bug mentioned in PR 59524.
The main issue was that Cilk keywords tests are running even when the user
configured the compiler with --disable-libcilkrts. This patch should fix this
issue for C and C++. This is tested on x86 and
Hello Everyone,
The attached patch will fix the issue reported in PR 59631. The main
issue was the usage of Cilk spawn [and _Cilk_sync] with -fcilkplus caused an
ICE. This patch should fix that. The issue was only reported for C++ but the
issue exists in C compiler also. This patch
-Original Message-
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 3:41 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'
Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'r...@redhat.com'; 'Jakub Jelinek'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On 12/17/2013
Hello Everyone,
Did anyone get a chance to look into this?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 11:51 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Jakub Jelinek
Subject: [PING][GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly
Ping!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
functions) for C
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:40 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:14:16AM +, Iyer, Balaji V
[mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:23 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com)'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
functions) for C++
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:36:04PM +, Iyer, Balaji V
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:58 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:46:40AM +, Iyer, Balaji V
Don't do this, compute loop count during omp expansion (there is already
code that does that for you, after all, for #pragma omp for the loop count is
typically (unless static schedule) passed as parameter to the runtime as well.
Where does this happen? Is there a routine that you can point me
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:28 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jason Merrill (ja...@redhat.com); 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: Question about omp-low.c
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:16:57PM +, Iyer, Balaji V
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@zalov.cz]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:31 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:53 PM
To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
functions) for C++
Hello Everyone,
The following changes
Hello Jakub et al.,
I have a question regarding the parallel for implementation. I am
implementing _Cilk_for based on the routines in omp-low.c and I would like to
create a child function but would like to move the items that gimplify_omp_for
inserts in for_pre_body in the top-level
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:18 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions
[mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On Mon
...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:25 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
Hi!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:23:43PM
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:26 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Joseph S. Myers; Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re
-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jakub Jelinek
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:52 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Aldy Hernandez; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +
- return (gimple_omp_subcode (g) GF_OMP_FOR_COMBINED) != 0;
+ return (gimple_omp_for_kind (g) == GF_OMP_FOR_COMBINED);
I don't really know this code, but this change seems unlikely to be correct.
Can you explain it?
I really need help on this. I need a new enum type (I call this:
Hi Jakub,
I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of
your comments. Please see below:
+#define CILK_SIMD_FN_CLAUSE_MASK \
+ ( (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1 PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_SIMDLEN)
\
+ | (OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_1
: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: FW: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
functions) for C++
PING!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:29 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On 12/12
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 12:40 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On 12/11
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jeff Law
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable Cilk keywords in Cilk Runtime
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Aldy Hernandez
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:03 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:38 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On 12
Hi Aldy,
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:27 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
Hello Everyone,
Since we have _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync support in C++ compiler, we
can enable the keyword usage in runtime. This patch should do so.
Is it Ok to install?
Here are the ChangeLog entries:
2013-12-11 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
* Makefile.am
-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 6:16 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
[Jakub, see below
for branch?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
PING!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:38 PM
To: 'al...@redhat.com'
Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
Hello
PING!
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:53 PM
To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: Aldy Hernandez (al...@redhat.com); 'Jeff Law'; 'gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [GOMP4][PATCH] SIMD-enabled functions (formerly Elemental
-Original Message-
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 4:00 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Jeff Law
Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++
On 12/04/2013 02:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
+ error_at
-Original Message-
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:39 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Jeff Law
Subject: Re: _Cilk_spawn and _Cilk_sync for C++
On 12/03/2013 07:08 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:30 AM
To: Jason Merrill; Iyer, Balaji V; Aldy Hernandez
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; r...@redhat.com; Jakub Jelinek
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On 11/27/13 17:52, Jason
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 8:40 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jeff Law; Jason Merrill; Aldy Hernandez; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
r...@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013
case CILK_SPAWN_STMT:
gcc_assert
(fn_contains_cilk_spawn_p (cfun)
lang_hooks.cilkplus.cilk_detect_spawn_and_unwrap (expr_p));
if (!seen_error ())
{
ret = (enum gimplify_status)
Hello Jakub,
I was looking at my elemental function for C patch that I fixed up and
send as requested by Aldy, and I saw two changes there that were used for C and
C++ and they were pretty obvious. Here are the changes. Can I just commit them?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
Index:
1 - 100 of 463 matches
Mail list logo
