On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 04:58:21PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> I'm proposing the following patch as a step towards resolving the issue with
> inaccessibility of stack storage (.local memory) in PTX to other threads than
> the one using that stack. The idea is to have preallocated stacks,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Does your patch affect all the stack allocations within certain function
> (i.e. no way to select on a per-variable bases what stack to allocate it
> to)? Without any detailed analysis at least e.g. spilled (non-addressable)
> vars could at least go to
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Does it really have to be a full multilib? I mean, the only precondition is
> that something sets up the var, right? Would the OpenACC folks be willing
> to set it up too? For stuff like libc, functions that are ECF_LEAF builtins
> IMHO really don't
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:14:41PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Does your patch affect all the stack allocations within certain function
> > (i.e. no way to select on a per-variable bases what stack to allocate it
> > to)? Without any detailed
Hello,
I'm proposing the following patch as a step towards resolving the issue with
inaccessibility of stack storage (.local memory) in PTX to other threads than
the one using that stack. The idea is to have preallocated stacks, and have
__nvptx_stacks[] array in shared memory hold current stack
I'm proposing the following patch as a step towards resolving the issue with
inaccessibility of stack storage (.local memory) in PTX to other threads than
the one using that stack. The idea is to have preallocated stacks, and have
__nvptx_stacks[] array in shared memory hold current stack
On 11/12/2015 03:59 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I've run it through make -k check-c regtesting. These are new fails, all
mysterious:
These would have to be investigated first.
Any specific suggestions? The PTX code emitted from GCC differs only
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > I've run it through make -k check-c regtesting. These are new fails, all
> > mysterious:
>
> These would have to be investigated first.
Any specific suggestions? The PTX code emitted from GCC differs only in
prologue/epilogue, so whatever's
