'
Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
Hi Jakub,
Please see my responses below.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:38 PM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:43:06AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Attached, please find a patch with the test case attached (for1.cc). The
patch is the same but the cp-changelog has been modified to reflect the
new test-case. Is this OK to install?
1) have you tested the patch at all? I see
'
Subject: RE: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
Hi Jakub,
-Original Message-
From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:58 PM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez';
'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'r
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:07:18PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I looked at both but forgot to test them with my implementation. Sorry
about this. I have fixed the ICE issue. To make sure this does not
happen further, I have added your test cf3.C into test suite (renamed to
cf3.cc). I hope
-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
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:14:23PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
The testcase is GPL as the original libgomp.c++/for-1.C testcase, so sure.
Perhaps it would be much better though if instead of having a compile time
testcase you'd just do what libgomp.c++/for-1.C does, just replace all the
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
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:04:38PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I looked at the test code you send me (cf3.cc) at -O1 and it is removing
all the lines you have shown above. Yes, I would imagine -O0 to have code
that can be redundant or unnecessary. Some of it could be the artifact of
-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
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:14:21PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Attached, please find a fixed patch. Along with it, I have also
added 2 changelog files for C and C++ respectively.
Have you even looked at the second testcase I've posted?
gimplification ICEs on it with your latest patch,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:27:26AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Attached, please find a fixed patch (diff.txt) that will do as you
requested (model _Cilk_for like a #pragma omp parallel for). Along with this,
I have also attached two Changelog entries (1 for C and 1 for C++).
It
'
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:27:26AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Attached, please find a fixed patch (diff.txt) that will do as you
requested (model _Cilk_for like a #pragma omp parallel for). Along with this,
I have also attached two
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:33:41PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
So, the issues I see:
1) what is iter.1, why do you have it at all, and, after all, the iterator
is a class
that needs to be constructed/destructed in the general way, so creating any
further copies of something is both
] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
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
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:55:38PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I thought about it a bit more, and the main issue here is that we
need access to the _Cilk_for loop's components both inside the child
function and the parent function.
I guess for the C++ iterators, if in the _Cilk_for
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
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:41:14PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
IMHO it is not as much work as you are fearing, at most a few hours of work
to get it right, and well worth doing. So, please at least try it out
and if you get stuck
: Re: [PING] [PATCH] _Cilk_for for C and C++
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:41:14PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at this _Cilk_for patch?
IMHO it is not as much work as you are fearing, at most a few hours of work
to get it right, and well worth doing. So
19 matches
Mail list logo
