-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
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:32:54PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Yes, though I still want to optimize it a little bit (generate thunks and/or
aliases when desirable/possible), but that only affects exported
entry-points
for OpenMP, for Cilk+ the code matches more the Intel ABI paper and
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:41:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
--- gcc/c/c-parser.c(revision 205759)
+++ gcc/c/c-parser.c(working copy)
@@ -208,6 +208,12 @@
/* True if we are in a context where the Objective-C Property
Hi!
For reference, here's my rationale for OpenACC on this topic:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:17:31 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:51:14AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hi Jakub,
I will work on this, but I need a couple clarifications about some of
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Also, If I created CILK_CLAUSE_* variants, I have to re-create another
function similar to c_parser_omp_all_clauses, whose workings will be
identical to the c_parser_omp_all_clauses. Is that OK with you?
No, I'd
Hi!
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:27:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
My understanding/reasoning is that PRAGMA_OMP_* just literally represents
a parser token of a pragma line (see the one-to-one translation in
-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
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:13:05PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
@@ -10418,6 +10528,12 @@
step = c_parser_expression (parser).value;
mark_exp_read (step);
step = c_fully_fold (step, false, NULL);
+ if (is_cilk_simd_fn TREE_CODE (step) == PARM_DECL)
+ {
+
...@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
Hi!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:23:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
+/* Returns name of the next clause in Cilk Plus SIMD-enabled function's
+ attribute.
+ If the clause is not recognized PRAGMA_OMP_CLAUSE_NONE is returned and
+ the token is not consumed. Otherwise appropriate
: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:13:05PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
@@ -10418,6 +10528,12 @@
step = c_parser_expression (parser).value;
mark_exp_read (step);
step = c_fully_fold (step
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:38:48PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
What I meant is
if (((mask PRAGMA_CILK_CLAUSE_VECTORLENGTH) 1) != 0)
is_cilk_simd_fn = true;
(note, for 32-bit HWI targets, omp_clause_mask is a class and not all
arithmetic is actually supported on it, so better
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:37:22PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
@@ -3765,6 +3777,93 @@
return attr_name;
}
+/* Parses the vector attribute of SIMD enabled functions in Cilk Plus.
+ VEC_TOKEN is the vector token that is replaced with simd and
+ pushed into the token list.
+
-
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 +
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:41:43PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
--- gcc/c/c-parser.c (revision 205759)
+++ gcc/c/c-parser.c (working copy)
@@ -208,6 +208,12 @@
/* True if we are in a context where the Objective-C Property attribute
keywords are valid. */
BOOL_BITFIELD
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
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:51:14AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
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
-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
+ /* Two CPP_EOF token is added as a safety-net since the normal C
+ front-end has two token look-ahead. */
Two CPP_EOF tokens are added... Also, safety net are two words, not
one hyphenated one.
Otherwise, I'm fine with the present patch. It's up to Jakub or another
global reviewer
-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
On 12/12/13 07:56, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Will it be Ok if I don’t mark them as cilk simd function but just
keep it as omp declare simd from the start? That should get around
this issue.
No, because then we won't be able to distinguish between OMP and Cilk
Plus clones. This is something we
-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
: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled Functions (formerly
Elemental functions) for C
But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as omp
declare simd? In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
Are the Cilk Plus clones not being marked as omp declare simd in
the front-ends
-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
, 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 12/11/13 09:31, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow
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
But aren't both OpenMP and Cilk Plus simd clones marked as omp
declare simd? In which case you shouldn't have to do anything?
Are the Cilk Plus clones not being marked as omp declare simd in
the front-ends?
Didn't you mention in this thread
-
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
[Jakub, see below]
+ if (!c_parser_elem_fn_vectorlength (parser)) +
{ + c_parser_skip_until_found (parser,
CPP_CLOSE_PAREN, NULL); + /* NO reason to keep
any of these tokens if the + vectorlength is
messed up. */ +
On 11/30/13 20:38, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Aldy,
Some of the middle end changes I made in the previous patch was not
flying for the C++. Here is a fixed patch where the middle-end changes will
work for both C and C++.
With this email, I am attaching the patch for C along
,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:15 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
HI Aldy and Jakub
Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com writes:
c_finish_omp_declare_simd (c_parser *parser, tree fndecl, tree parms,
vecc_token clauses)
{
+
+ if (flag_enable_cilkplus
+ clauses.exists () !vec_safe_is_empty (parser-elem_fn_tokens))
+{
+ error
: Added calls for the above tests.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:52 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PING]: [GOMP4] [PATCH] SIMD-Enabled
36 matches
Mail list logo
