On 11/29/2013 06:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:07:38PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
By what mechanism do you choose? This is unclear to me from what I've
seen. Does this involve user action, and what's the advantage of doing
it this way?
See the 3 threads I've
Hi Bernd,
I am working on offloading support for OpenMP4, so I'll try to share my vision
of how everything works and answer your questions.
GCC compiles host version of the code (as usual) and dumps Gimple, as it does
for LTO, but for offloading. Gimple IR is stored only for functions/variables
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:36:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Thoughts, comments? Does anyone have a good name for these accelerator
targets or output targets, something that avoids the overloaded word
target (I was
On 11/20/2013 10:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:34:30AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 Nov 11:27, Richard Biener wrote:
+ /* Set when symbol needs to be dumped for lto/offloading. */
+
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:34:30AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 Nov 11:27, Richard
On 11/29/2013 01:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that we (SUSE/AMD) sofar think we can go an easier route, not
adding a real backend that targets HSAIL/BRIG but instead use a
custom GIMPLE SSA - HSAIL/BRIG translator (including a SSA
based register allocator). Which if course simplifies
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 11/29/2013 01:36 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that we (SUSE/AMD) sofar think we can go an easier route, not
adding a real backend that targets HSAIL/BRIG but instead use a
custom GIMPLE SSA - HSAIL/BRIG
Hello Bernd,
On 29 Nov 13:17, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
5. There's a new DECL_TARGET which refers to this list of target
machines. It's set when creating a child function from e.g. #pragma acc
parallel
Actually, I do not understand, what term `target machine' means here.
Are you talking about to
On 11/29/2013 02:05 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
On 29 Nov 13:17, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
5. There's a new DECL_TARGET which refers to this list of target
machines. It's set when creating a child function from e.g. #pragma acc
parallel
Actually, I do not understand, what term `target machine' means
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:36:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Thoughts, comments? Does anyone have a good name for these accelerator
targets or output targets, something that avoids the overloaded word
target (I was thinking destination machine maybe)?
I think offload is best word here.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
We've been working on similar patches for our OpenACC project. The goal
is to have functions generated during omp-low that will ultimately
execute on a ptx target, write them out using LTO infrastructure and
read them back in using
On 11/29/2013 04:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As you want to dump the GIMPLE IL right out of ~ IPA stage, it should in
theory be target independent, so it is undesirable to emit it several times
for each offloading target.
That's not what happens. It's just partitioned into disjoint sets, one
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/29/2013 04:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As you want to dump the GIMPLE IL right out of ~ IPA stage, it should in
theory be target independent, so it is undesirable to emit it several times
for each offloading target.
On 11/29/2013 06:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/29/2013 04:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As you want to dump the GIMPLE IL right out of ~ IPA stage, it should in
theory be target independent, so it is undesirable to emit it
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:07:38PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
By what mechanism do you choose? This is unclear to me from what I've
seen. Does this involve user action, and what's the advantage of doing
it this way?
See the 3 threads I've mentioned. The compiler would know the list of
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 Nov 11:27, Richard Biener wrote:
+ /* Set when symbol needs to be dumped for lto/offloading. */
+ unsigned need_dump : 1;
+
That's very non-descriptive. What's offloading? But yes, something
like this
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:34:30AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 Nov 11:27, Richard Biener wrote:
+ /* Set when symbol needs to be dumped for lto/offloading. */
+ unsigned need_dump : 1;
+
That's
On 14 Nov 11:27, Richard Biener wrote:
+ /* Set when symbol needs to be dumped for lto/offloading. */
+ unsigned need_dump : 1;
+
That's very non-descriptive. What's offloading? But yes, something
like this is what I was asking for.
I've changed it into:
Set when symbol needs to be
On 18 Oct 13:30, Richard Biener wrote:
Certainly better than the first version. Jakub should decide for the branch
and eventually Honza for the merge to trunk. It still looks somewhat hackish,
but I suppose that's because we don't have a LTO-state object where we
can encapsulate all this.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 Oct 13:30, Richard Biener wrote:
Certainly better than the first version. Jakub should decide for the branch
and eventually Honza for the merge to trunk. It still looks somewhat
hackish,
but I suppose that's
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 Sep 21:21, Ilya Tocar wrote:
On 25 Sep 15:48, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 24 Sep 11:02, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at
Ping.
On 09 Oct 19:12, Ilya Tocar wrote:
Ping.
On 03 Oct 20:05, Ilya Tocar wrote:
On 26 Sep 21:21, Ilya Tocar wrote:
On 25 Sep 15:48, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 24 Sep 11:02, Richard Biener wrote:
Ping.
On 03 Oct 20:05, Ilya Tocar wrote:
On 26 Sep 21:21, Ilya Tocar wrote:
On 25 Sep 15:48, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar tocarip.in...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 24 Sep 11:02, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Tocar
23 matches
Mail list logo
